[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Popat Manohar Salvi vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 March, 2026
Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
Digitally signed
by CHITRA
2026:BHC-AS:11123 CHITRA
SANJAY
SANJAY
SONAWANE
Date:
SONAWANE 2026.03.06
19:49:00
+0530
Chitra Sonawane. 903-CRA-30-2006.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Revision Application No.30 of 2006
Popat Manohar Salvi
Adult, 46, Service, Police
Constable B.No.123, R/o Khadki, Pune ... Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
----
None for the applicant.
Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for the respondent/ State.
----
Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.
Date: 6 March 2026.
P.C.:
This revision application takes exception to the judgment
and order dated 30 June 2005 passed by the learned Sessions
Court, Kalyan, in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2002, whereby the
learned Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the
conviction of the applicant/ accused recorded by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan, vide the judgment and
order dated 20 November 2002, in SCC No.5783 of 1993,
under Section 145 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. The prosecution's case, in substance, is that the accused,
who was working as a Police Constable at the Kalyan Railway
__________________________________________________
6 March 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 903-CRA-30-2006.docx
Police Station, Kalyan, remained absent from duty from 14 July
1993 without any intimation. It is alleged that he remained
absent for a prolonged period and did not report back to duty,
despite receiving a show cause notice, until after the report was
lodged on 26 November 1993. According to the prosecution,
such absence constituted wilful breach and neglect of duty
within the meaning of Section 145 of the Bombay Police Act.
3. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The applicant
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, the
prosecution examined three witnesses, viz., PSI Nagnath
Shrirang Patole (PW-1), Head Constable posted at GRP, Kalyan;
Uttam Karbhari Padole (PW-2), Police Official; and PI
Paragonda Appasaheb Patil (PW-3), the complainant and
investigating officer. As the prosecution closed its evidence, the
accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied the incriminating
circumstances found in the prosecution's witnesses as false and
examined PC Shyam Naik (DW-1) in his defence.
4. After appraisal of the evidence, the learned trial Court
convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section
145 of the Bombay Police Act and sentence to undergo simple
imprisonment of three months and pay a fine of Rs.100/-, with
default stipulations. In appeal, the learned appellate Court
__________________________________________________
6 March 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 903-CRA-30-2006.docx
maintained the conviction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the concurrent finding of conviction, the applicant has
preferred the present revision application.
5. This Court has given anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced across the Bar and perused the records.
6. Before proceeding to evaluate the evidence, it would be
appropriate to note that Section 145(2) of the Bombay Police
Act prescribes punishment in the following circumstances : (a)
where the police officer is guilty of cowardice; (b) where he
resigns the office or withdraws himself from duties thereof in
contravention of Section 29; (c) where he is guilty of any wilful
breach or neglect of any provision of law or of any rule or
order which as such police officer, it is his duty to observe or
obey; and (d) where he is guilty of any violation of duty for
which no punishment is expressly provided by any other law in
force.
7. The alleged contravention of Section 29 of the Bombay
Police Act is required to be examined in the present matter.
Section 29 clearly stipulates that no police officer shall resign
from his office or withdraw himself from the discharge of his
official duties except with the prior written permission of the
competent authority. The primary objective underlying this
__________________________________________________
6 March 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 903-CRA-30-2006.docx
statutory provision is to ensure that members of the police
force do not abruptly abandon their responsibilities,
particularly at times when their services are urgently required
for the maintenance of law and order and public safety. The
legislative intent behind Section 29 is therefore to prevent a
sudden or unauthorised exodus of police personnel from their
assigned duties, which could otherwise compromise the
effective functioning of the police administration. The phrase
"withdraw himself from the duties thereof ", as employed in the
provision, must be interpreted to imply a deliberate and
intentional avoidance of duties specifically assigned to the
officer. Such withdrawal presupposes a conscious decision to
refrain from performing a particular duty that has been
entrusted to the officer in the course of his official functions.
8. In the present case, upon a careful examination of the
evidence adduced by the prosecution, it appears that the
applicant remained absent from duty from 14 July 1993 to 26
November 1993. The defence advanced by the applicant was
that he had suffered illness and already sent his leave
application with DW1. With regard to the issue of continuous
absence from duty, there can be little dispute that such
absenteeism may legitimately constitute grounds for initiating
departmental proceedings against the applicant on charges of
__________________________________________________
6 March 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 903-CRA-30-2006.docx
misconduct or dereliction of duty. If it were established that the
applicant had developed a pattern of habitual absence or
conduct inconsistent with the discipline expected from
members of the police force, appropriate departmental action
could certainly be taken against him. However, for the purpose
of establishing criminal liability under the relevant statutory
provisions, the prosecution must demonstrate the culpable act
accompanied by the requisite mens rea.
9. In the present case, there appears to be scant material on
record indicating that the applicant had been assigned any
specific duty which he intentionally avoided performing. In
other words, it is necessary to establish that the applicant's
absence was motivated by the intention to evade the
performance of a particular duty entrusted to him. The concept
of withdrawal from duty must be distinguished from the notion
of mere absenteeism. The two expressions are not synonymous
and cannot be treated interchangeably. Section 145(2)(b) deals
with situations where a police officer either tenders resignation
or withdraws from an assigned duty with the intention of
avoiding the nature of the work entrusted to him. For instance,
if police personnel are deputed to serve as members of an anti-
terrorist squad and subsequently resign from their post or
withdraw from such duties in violation of Section 29, such
__________________________________________________
6 March 2026
Chitra Sonawane. 903-CRA-30-2006.docx
conduct would clearly fall within the ambit of an offence under
Clause 2 of Section 145 of the Bombay Police Act.
10. In the present case, however, the evidence on record
merely establishes that the applicant remained absent from
duty. Section 145 specifically contemplates situations involving
withdrawal from duties in contravention of Section 29, which
necessarily implies an intentional refusal to perform a particular
assigned duty or a deliberate cessation of such duty after its
assignment. Consequently, mere absence from duty, without
proof of a deliberate intention to avoid or abandon a
specifically assigned task, would not be sufficient to attract the
penal consequences contemplated under Sections 29(2) read
with 145 of the Bombay Police Act.
11. Having regard to these circumstances, the present revision
application is allowed. Accordingly, the judgment and order
dated 30 June 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Court,
Kalyan, in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2002, and the judgment
and order dated 20 November 2002 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalyan, in SCC No.5783 of
1993, are quashed and set aside. The applicant is acquitted of
the offence punishable under Section 145 of the Bombay Police
Act.
[ R.N. Laddha, J. ]
__________________________________________________
6 March 2026
