Central Bureau Of Investigation ... vs Ravishekhar Bhaskar Londekar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2475 Bom

                                         1                                   93-APPEAL-105-18.odt


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.105 OF 2018
  CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR,
 ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, NAGPUR AND SPECIAL CRIME UNIT-I, NEW
                                                 DELHI
                                                   Vrs.
                           RAVISHEKHAR BHASKAR LONDEKAR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of                             Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Ms. Mugdha Chandurkar, Special Advocate for the appellant.
                          Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for respondent-sole.

                                          CORAM: Z.A. HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 08/02/2021.

1. Criminal Appeal No.105 of 2018 is filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation to challenge the judgment passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.187/2013 on 05/04/2017. By the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.187/2013, the Sessions Court has set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur and the accused is acquitted.

2. By the order dated 17/11/2017, notice was issued to the the respondent-accused. By the order dated 15/02/2018, this Court had refused to grant leave to the appellant / Central Bureau of Investigation to file appeal. The order was challenged by the Central Bureau of Investigation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1058/2019 which came to be allowed by the judgment dated 17/07/2019 and the matter is

2 93-APPEAL-105-18.odt

remitted to this Court. When the matter was listed on 08/01/2021, leave to file appeal is granted and criminal appeal came to be admitted. It was further directed that action shall be taken as per Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent - accused was arrested on 01/02/2021 and was produced before the Sessions Court, which remanded the accused to enable his production before this Court on 02/02/2021. The respondent - accused was produced before this Court on 02/02/2021 on which date, it was directed that the accused be released forthwith, and the accused was granted time to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court.

3. On 03/02/2021, Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, learned Advocate representing the respondent - accused mentioned the matter for urgent circulation. Ms. Mugdha Chandurkar, Special Advocate representing the appellant - Central Bureau of Investigation was also present. It was complained that the directions given by this Court to release the respondent - accused forthwith were not complied with and he was continued in custody in the night intervening 02/03/2021 and 03/02/2021. The matter was taken up on 02/02/2021 in the afternoon session by which time, the respondent - accused was released.

3 93-APPEAL-105-18.odt

4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur was directed to remain present and to file affidavit explaining his stand.

Shri Anoop Madhukarrao Kumre, Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur filed an affidavit sworn on 03/02/2021 stating that the order passed by this Court on 02/02/2021 was communicated to the Jail Authorities at 6.00 p.m. i.e. after the closure of the lock-up at 5.00 p.m., hence, as per the procedure, the drop box of the Court's order was opened next day i.e. on 03/02/2021 and the release order was sent to the Sessions Court for verification and after receipt of verification from the Sessions Court, necessary formalities were fulfilled by the Jail Authorities at around 1.00 p.m. and the accused was released. We were not satisfied with the explanation given by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur and therefore, we called upon the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur to file further affidavit substantiating the inaction on his part and not complying with the directions given by this Court.

5. Shri Anoop Madhukarrao Kumre, Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur filed another affidavit sworn on 04/02/2021 stating the factual aspects in paragraph No. 5 of it as follows :-

"5. I say and submit that, as per directions by the Hon'ble High Court, the accused prisoner has been handed over to the custody of CBI, Nagpur on 2-2-2021 at 1-10 PM for production of the accused before the Hon'ble

4 93-APPEAL-105-18.odt

High Court. The authority of CBI, Nagpur has produced the accused before the Hon'ble Court on 2-2-2021. After production, the accused was returned to the prison at about 20-10 PM. The specific entry has been made in this regard in Gate register No.11 and same is annexed herewith as Annexure No.R-II."

On legal aspects, Sections 388 and 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Clause (9) of Part-II of Chapter XXXIV of the Maharashtra Prison Manual, 1979 were referred and relied upon on behalf of the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur to urge that the accused could not be released after closure of the wards i.e. after 5.00 p.m. A completely different stand was taken in paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the affidavit dated 04/02/2021 stating that the confirmation release warrant was received from the Sessions Court on 03/02/2021 and therefore, the accused was released on 03/02/2021 at 1.00 p.m. after completing formalities. In paragraph No. 11 of the affidavit sworn on 04/02/2021, it is stated that confirmation warrant is must for release of the accused.

6. During the course of hearing, Shri S.P. Bhandrkar, learned Advocate who represents the respondent - accused in the criminal appeal pointed out Clause (19) of Part-II of Chapter XXXIV of the Maharashtra Prison Manual which reads as follows :-

"19. Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding rule, the Superintendent may, having regard to any special reasons given by the District Magistrate in that behalf, release any prisoner between the hours of 6 p.m. and 7 a.m."

5 93-APPEAL-105-18.odt

7. A specific query was put to Shri S.D.

Sirpurkar, learned APP calling upon him to take instructions as to what action was taken as per Clause (19) referred above to ensure compliance of the directions given by this Court by the order dated 02/02/2021 to release the respondent - accused forthwith. Though Shri Anoop Madhukarrao Kumre, Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur has filed three affidavits sworn on 03/02/2021, 04/02/2021 and 05/02/2021, nothing is stated to point out the steps taken to comply with the directions given by this Court to release the respondent - accused forthwith.

8. During the course of hearing, Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned Advocate pointed out the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.524/2020 on 25/11/2020 in which the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur was respondent No.2 and we are informed that Shri Anoop Madhukarrao Kumre was the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur at that time also. Paragraph No.3 of the judgment delivered in Criminal Writ Petition No.524/2020 is relevant and reads as follows :-

"3. The reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 is far from satisfactory, rather it borders upon interfering in the administration of justice. We say so with all sense of responsibility. The least that is expected from the State is to be correct on facts and straight forward in submissions. The reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, does not fulfill any of these parameters. The reply

6 93-APPEAL-105-18.odt

is misleading and also takes a ground which is not stated in the impugned order, for resisting this petition. It appears that the respondent No.2 has taken the issue quite personally and, therefore, while filing an affidavit, he has displayed his utter dislike for the petitioner. Being a public servant, it is expected of respondent No.2 to be fair in performance of his duty and treat all the inmates of the jail as well as his staff members with equality. But, that has not been done by the respondent No.2. This time we would not pass any order which may be adverse to the interest of respondent No.2, but, we would like to put respondent No.2 and the officers like him who are public servants on guard by what we have said just now."

9. Considering the material on record, prima facie, we are convinced that proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are required to be initiated against Shri Anoop Madhukarrao Kumre.

10. Hence, the following order :-

11. Office to register suo motu Contempt Petition showing Anoop Madhukarrao Kumre, Superintendent Central Prison, Nagpur as respondent.

12. Issue notice in Form No.I under Rule 09 of Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (under Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960), returnable on 23/02/2021.

13. Shri F. T. Mirza, learned Advocate who represents High Court, is requested to assist the Court.

7 93-APPEAL-105-18.odt

14. Office to supply complete set of documents and orders to Shri F.T. Mirza, Advocate.

                                JUDGE                            JUDGE

Choulwar