Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Decided On : Jan-29-2013

Court : Mumbai

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 13(2',
			(int) 2 => 'Prevention of Corruption Act',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 2(s',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 5 => 'Article 14 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 5',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 5',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 2(s',
			(int) 14 => 'Section 154(A',
			(int) 15 => 'Order No.ACB-3059V.',
			(int) 16 => 'section 5',
			(int) 17 => 'the Bombay Police Act',
			(int) 18 => 'Section 5',
			(int) 19 => 'the State Reorganisation Act',
			(int) 20 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 21 => 'Article 14 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 22 => 'Article 14 of the Constitution of India'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'A.S. Oka',
			(int) 1 => 'Petitioner',
			(int) 2 => 'Schedule'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sections 7 and',
			(int) 1 => 'The First Information Report',
			(int) 2 => 'Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 3 => 'Vikhroli Police Station',
			(int) 4 => 'Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 5 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 6 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 7 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 8 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 9 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 10 => 'State',
			(int) 11 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 12 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 13 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 14 => 'State',
			(int) 15 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 16 => 'State',
			(int) 17 => 'Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 18 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 19 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 20 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 21 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 22 => 'State',
			(int) 23 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 24 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 25 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 26 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 27 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 28 => 'the Home Department of the State Government',
			(int) 29 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 30 => 'XXII',
			(int) 31 => 'the Government of Maharashtra',
			(int) 32 => 'the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau',
			(int) 33 => 'Maharashtra State',
			(int) 34 => 'State',
			(int) 35 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 36 => 'State',
			(int) 37 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 38 => 'Police Force',
			(int) 39 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 40 => 'the Police Force',
			(int) 41 => 'the Police Force under Sec',
			(int) 42 => 'the Police Force',
			(int) 43 => 'Sec',
			(int) 44 => 'the Indian Police',
			(int) 45 => 'Indian Police Service',
			(int) 46 => 'State',
			(int) 47 => 'State',
			(int) 48 => 'the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau',
			(int) 49 => 'State',
			(int) 50 => 'the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau',
			(int) 51 => 'Maharashtra State',
			(int) 52 => 'the Anti-Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 53 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 54 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
			(int) 55 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 56 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 57 => 'State',
			(int) 58 => 'the First Information Report'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1988',
			(int) 1 => '31st October 2012',
			(int) 2 => 'Rs.18,000/-',
			(int) 3 => '1988',
			(int) 4 => '23rd October 1961',
			(int) 5 => '1951',
			(int) 6 => '1951',
			(int) 7 => '1951',
			(int) 8 => '23rd October 1961',
			(int) 9 => 'October 1961',
			(int) 10 => '1951',
			(int) 11 => '1951',
			(int) 12 => '1951',
			(int) 13 => '1956',
			(int) 14 => '1956',
			(int) 15 => '23rd October 1961',
			(int) 16 => '23rd October 1961',
			(int) 17 => '23rd October 1961',
			(int) 18 => '1988'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'fifth',
			(int) 1 => 'first',
			(int) 2 => 'sixth',
			(int) 3 => 'sixth',
			(int) 4 => 'sixth',
			(int) 5 => 'fifth',
			(int) 6 => 'fifth',
			(int) 7 => 'second',
			(int) 8 => 'fifth',
			(int) 9 => 'fifth',
			(int) 10 => 'fifth'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 1 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 2 => 'States',
			(int) 3 => 'City',
			(int) 4 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 5 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 6 => 'Bombay',
			(int) 7 => 'Mumbai'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2.',
			(int) 1 => '1',
			(int) 2 => '3.',
			(int) 3 => '1',
			(int) 4 => '154(1',
			(int) 5 => '4',
			(int) 6 => '1',
			(int) 7 => '1',
			(int) 8 => '3',
			(int) 9 => '1',
			(int) 10 => 'zero',
			(int) 11 => '5.',
			(int) 12 => '6',
			(int) 13 => '5',
			(int) 14 => '3',
			(int) 15 => '115',
			(int) 16 => '7',
			(int) 17 => '1',
			(int) 18 => '8'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Accused'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Bombay Police Act'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT Sachivalaya',
			(int) 1 => 'The Writ Petition'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1102947',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Writ Petition No.4425 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 226 -<br/> Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482, 2(s), 154(1) â<br/> Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) â<br/> Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 5 â<br/> <br/> Comparative Citations:<br/> 2013 (2) BCR(Cri) 810, 2013 (3) AIR(Bom) R 787',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-01-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.S. OKA &amp; A.P. BHANGALE',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> By this Petition, the Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") for quashing an offence registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1988"). The First Information Report was registered by the fifth Respondent-the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. The first Informant is the sixth Respondent. The Petitioner accused was a Police Constable who was at the relevant time attached to Vikhroli Police Station, Mumbai. The allegation against him is of demand of illegal gratification from the sixth Respondent. On the basis of information supplied by the sixth Respondent, a trap was laid on 31st October 2012 when the Petitioner was caught raid-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.18,000/- in cash.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The challenge in this Petition is not on merits. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the fifth Respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted that the Anti Corruption Bureau has not been conferred with the status of a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Code. He urged that under Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code, the First Information Report can be registered only by an officer in-charge of a police station. He submitted that as the Anti Corruption Bureau is not the police station within the meaning of the said Code, even assuming that there is a notification under which the fifth Respondent is made an officer in-charge of the police station, the Anti Corruption Bureau is not at all a police station. He, therefore, submitted that the registration of the First Information Report is illegal. His second submission is based on the practice allegedly followed in other parts of the States. He urged that in other parts of the State whenever any information in relation to the offence under the said Act of 1988 is received by the Anti Corruption Bureau, the offence is registered with the concerned police station having jurisdiction over the area where the offence has been committed. After registration of the offence in the regular police station, the investigation is carried out by the Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted that only in the case of City of Mumbai, a separate procedure is carved out. He submitted that the said procedure adopted by the Anti Corruption Bureau in Mumbai is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as all the Accused are entitled to equal treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> He urged that the reliance placed on Government Resolution dated 23rd October 1961 will not help the State as it is, in as much as the same does not confer a status of police station on the Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted the Notification has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1951"). He urged that Section 5 of the said Act of 1951 does not confer a power on the State to declare Anti Corruption Bureau as a Police Station. He, therefore, submitted that the action of the registration of the First Information Report by the fifth Respondent itself is an illegal and, therefore, the First Information Report deserves to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that an offence has been registered by the Assistant Commissioner of Police who has been conferred the status of an officer in-charge of the police station. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that merely because some other procedure followed in other parts of the State, the First Information Report is not rendered illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code which reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "154(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. On plain reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code, it does cast an obligation on an officer officer-in-charge of the police station to reduce into writing every information received by him relating to the commission of a cognizable office even if it is given orally. Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code confers a power on such officer in-charge of a police station to reduce the information in writing and register what is known as the First Information Report. The power has been specifically conferred on a police officer who is designated as an officer in-charge of the police station. The power to reduce in writing the information received regarding commission of cognizable offence is not conferred on a police station but is conferred on an officer who is an officer in-charge of a police station. A police station is nothing but a post or place including a local area. It is nothing but headquarter of police for a local area concerned. Even Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the said Code provides for the procedure in case of refusal on the part of the said officer to register the offence. Thus, in Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code, there is no power conferred on a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Code to register an offence. We may take a note of a practice consistently followed when an officer incharge of a police station who is posted in a police station receives an information regarding commission of cognizable offence, which is committed within the jurisdiction of some other police station. In such a case, the officer in-charge of the police station can record the First Information Report under a zero number and transfer it to the police station concerned having jurisdiction or local limits for the purposes of investigation. Thus, an offence is to be registered not by a "police station" but by an officer-in-charge of a police station. As stated earlier, a "police station" is a building or a premises or a post or a place declared by the State Government as such. The action contemplated by Section 154(A) of the said code is to be taken by an individual police officer named as an officer-in-charge of a police station.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. At this stage, a reference will have to be made to the Government Resolution dated 23rd October 1961 issued by the Secretary to the Home Department of the State Government in the name of Governor of Maharashtra. The same reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sachivalaya, Bombay - 32, 23rd October 1961 Order No.ACB-3059V. - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bom.XXII of 1951), the Government of Maharashtra hereby directs that whenever any officer of and above the rank of a Police Sub-Inspector of the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau of the Maharashtra State investigates, at any place in the State, any offence, he shall be deemed to be an officer in the charge of the Police Station within the limits of which such place is situate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The State government has exercised the power under Section 5 of the said Act of 1951 which reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "5. Constitution of Police Force. - Subject to the provisions of this Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> a) The Police Force shall consist of such number in the several ranks and have such organization and such powers, functions and duties as the State Government may by general or special order determine;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> b) The recruitment, pay, allowances and all other conditions of service of the Police Force shall be such as may from time to time be determined by the State Government may by general or special order;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1(i) the rules and orders governing the recruitment, pay, allowances and other conditions of service of the members of the Police Force constituted under any of the Acts mentioned in Part I or II of Sch. I and deemed to be the members of the Police Force under Sec. 3, shall continue in force until altered or cancelled under Cl. (b); but in the case of members of the Police Force constituted under any of the Acts mentioned in Part II or that Schedule such alteration or cancellation shall be subject to the proviso to sub-section (7) of Sec. 115 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 (XXXVII of 1956);</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) nothing in this clause shall apply to the recruitment, pay, allowances and other conditions of service of the members of the Indian Police and Indian Police Service."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The power conferred by the said Section in the State is of determining the powers, functions and duties of police officers. In exercise of the said power, the State can always confer powers of an officer in-charge of a police station on a police officer or a class of police officers. By the said order dated 23rd October 1961, a status of the officer in-charge of the police station has been conferred on any officer of and above the rank of a Police Sub-Inspector of the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau of the Maharashtra State. By a deeming fiction introduced by the said order, when such officer investigates at any place in the State any offence, he shall be deemed to be an officer in-charge of the police station within the limits of which such place is situated. Thus, the officers of certain rank of the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau of the Maharashtra State above have been appointed as the officers in-charge of a police station. That is how the fifth Respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to the Anti-Corruption Bureau registered the First Information Report as an officer in-charge of the police station by virtue of the said order dated 23rd October 1961. The designation of the fifth Respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Mumbai. Therefore, as an officer in-charge of a police station appointed under the said order dated 23rd October 1961, he was empowered to reduce into writing the information relating to the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code. Thus, no illegality can be attached to the First Information Report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Merely because in other parts of the States, the offence is being registered at the police station, Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by the accused. Suffice it to say that the registration of the First Information Report in the present case is legal and valid. Merely because some other procedure is followed in other parts of the State, no case of discrimination or arbitrariness which prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is made out. There is no prejudice to the Petitioner. Hence, we find no merit in the Petition. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the accusations made in the First Information Report. We pass the following order:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is rejected.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Maharashtra and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1102947'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 13(2',
		(int) 2 => 'Prevention of Corruption Act',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 2(s',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 5 => 'Article 14 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 5',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 5',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 2(s',
		(int) 14 => 'Section 154(A',
		(int) 15 => 'Order No.ACB-3059V.',
		(int) 16 => 'section 5',
		(int) 17 => 'the Bombay Police Act',
		(int) 18 => 'Section 5',
		(int) 19 => 'the State Reorganisation Act',
		(int) 20 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 21 => 'Article 14 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 22 => 'Article 14 of the Constitution of India'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'A.S. Oka',
		(int) 1 => 'Petitioner',
		(int) 2 => 'Schedule'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sections 7 and',
		(int) 1 => 'The First Information Report',
		(int) 2 => 'Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 3 => 'Vikhroli Police Station',
		(int) 4 => 'Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 5 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 6 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 7 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 8 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 9 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 10 => 'State',
		(int) 11 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 12 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 13 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 14 => 'State',
		(int) 15 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 16 => 'State',
		(int) 17 => 'Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 18 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 19 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 20 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 21 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 22 => 'State',
		(int) 23 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 24 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 25 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 26 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 27 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 28 => 'the Home Department of the State Government',
		(int) 29 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 30 => 'XXII',
		(int) 31 => 'the Government of Maharashtra',
		(int) 32 => 'the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau',
		(int) 33 => 'Maharashtra State',
		(int) 34 => 'State',
		(int) 35 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 36 => 'State',
		(int) 37 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 38 => 'Police Force',
		(int) 39 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 40 => 'the Police Force',
		(int) 41 => 'the Police Force under Sec',
		(int) 42 => 'the Police Force',
		(int) 43 => 'Sec',
		(int) 44 => 'the Indian Police',
		(int) 45 => 'Indian Police Service',
		(int) 46 => 'State',
		(int) 47 => 'State',
		(int) 48 => 'the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau',
		(int) 49 => 'State',
		(int) 50 => 'the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau',
		(int) 51 => 'Maharashtra State',
		(int) 52 => 'the Anti-Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 53 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 54 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
		(int) 55 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 56 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 57 => 'State',
		(int) 58 => 'the First Information Report'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1988',
		(int) 1 => '31st October 2012',
		(int) 2 => 'Rs.18,000/-',
		(int) 3 => '1988',
		(int) 4 => '23rd October 1961',
		(int) 5 => '1951',
		(int) 6 => '1951',
		(int) 7 => '1951',
		(int) 8 => '23rd October 1961',
		(int) 9 => 'October 1961',
		(int) 10 => '1951',
		(int) 11 => '1951',
		(int) 12 => '1951',
		(int) 13 => '1956',
		(int) 14 => '1956',
		(int) 15 => '23rd October 1961',
		(int) 16 => '23rd October 1961',
		(int) 17 => '23rd October 1961',
		(int) 18 => '1988'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'fifth',
		(int) 1 => 'first',
		(int) 2 => 'sixth',
		(int) 3 => 'sixth',
		(int) 4 => 'sixth',
		(int) 5 => 'fifth',
		(int) 6 => 'fifth',
		(int) 7 => 'second',
		(int) 8 => 'fifth',
		(int) 9 => 'fifth',
		(int) 10 => 'fifth'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 1 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 2 => 'States',
		(int) 3 => 'City',
		(int) 4 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 5 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 6 => 'Bombay',
		(int) 7 => 'Mumbai'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2.',
		(int) 1 => '1',
		(int) 2 => '3.',
		(int) 3 => '1',
		(int) 4 => '154(1',
		(int) 5 => '4',
		(int) 6 => '1',
		(int) 7 => '1',
		(int) 8 => '3',
		(int) 9 => '1',
		(int) 10 => 'zero',
		(int) 11 => '5.',
		(int) 12 => '6',
		(int) 13 => '5',
		(int) 14 => '3',
		(int) 15 => '115',
		(int) 16 => '7',
		(int) 17 => '1',
		(int) 18 => '8'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Accused'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Bombay Police Act'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT Sachivalaya',
		(int) 1 => 'The Writ Petition'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1102947',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Writ Petition No.4425 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 226 -<br/> Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482, 2(s), 154(1) â<br/> Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) â<br/> Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 5 â<br/> <br/> Comparative Citations:<br/> 2013 (2) BCR(Cri) 810, 2013 (3) AIR(Bom) R 787',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-01-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.S. OKA &amp; A.P. BHANGALE',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> By this Petition, the Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") for quashing an offence registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1988"). The First Information Report was registered by the fifth Respondent-the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. The first Informant is the sixth Respondent. The Petitioner accused was a Police Constable who was at the relevant time attached to Vikhroli Police Station, Mumbai. The allegation against him is of demand of illegal gratification from the sixth Respondent. On the basis of information supplied by the sixth Respondent, a trap was laid on 31st October 2012 when the Petitioner was caught raid-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.18,000/- in cash.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The challenge in this Petition is not on merits. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the fifth Respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted that the Anti Corruption Bureau has not been conferred with the status of a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Code. He urged that under Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code, the First Information Report can be registered only by an officer in-charge of a police station. He submitted that as the Anti Corruption Bureau is not the police station within the meaning of the said Code, even assuming that there is a notification under which the fifth Respondent is made an officer in-charge of the police station, the Anti Corruption Bureau is not at all a police station. He, therefore, submitted that the registration of the First Information Report is illegal. His second submission is based on the practice allegedly followed in other parts of the States. He urged that in other parts of the State whenever any information in relation to the offence under the said Act of 1988 is received by the Anti Corruption Bureau, the offence is registered with the concerned police station having jurisdiction over the area where the offence has been committed. After registration of the offence in the regular police station, the investigation is carried out by the Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted that only in the case of City of Mumbai, a separate procedure is carved out. He submitted that the said procedure adopted by the Anti Corruption Bureau in Mumbai is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as all the Accused are entitled to equal treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> He urged that the reliance placed on Government Resolution dated 23rd October 1961 will not help the State as it is, in as much as the same does not confer a status of police station on the Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted the Notification has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1951"). He urged that Section 5 of the said Act of 1951 does not confer a power on the State to declare Anti Corruption Bureau as a Police Station. He, therefore, submitted that the action of the registration of the First Information Report by the fifth Respondent itself is an illegal and, therefore, the First Information Report deserves to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that an offence has been registered by the Assistant Commissioner of Police who has been conferred the status of an officer in-charge of the police station. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that merely because some other procedure followed in other parts of the State, the First Information Report is not rendered illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code which reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "154(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. On plain reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code, it does cast an obligation on an officer officer-in-charge of the police station to reduce into writing every information received by him relating to the commission of a cognizable office even if it is given orally. Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code confers a power on such officer in-charge of a police station to reduce the information in writing and register what is known as the First Information Report. The power has been specifically conferred on a police officer who is designated as an officer in-charge of the police station. The power to reduce in writing the information received regarding commission of cognizable offence is not conferred on a police station but is conferred on an officer who is an officer in-charge of a police station. A police station is nothing but a post or place including a local area. It is nothing but headquarter of police for a local area concerned. Even Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the said Code provides for the procedure in case of refusal on the part of the said officer to register the offence. Thus, in Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code, there is no power conferred on a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Code to register an offence. We may take a note of a practice consistently followed when an officer incharge of a police station who is posted in a police station receives an information regarding commission of cognizable offence, which is committed within the jurisdiction of some other police station. In such a case, the officer in-charge of the police station can record the First Information Report under a zero number and transfer it to the police station concerned having jurisdiction or local limits for the purposes of investigation. Thus, an offence is to be registered not by a "police station" but by an officer-in-charge of a police station. As stated earlier, a "police station" is a building or a premises or a post or a place declared by the State Government as such. The action contemplated by Section 154(A) of the said code is to be taken by an individual police officer named as an officer-in-charge of a police station.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. At this stage, a reference will have to be made to the Government Resolution dated 23rd October 1961 issued by the Secretary to the Home Department of the State Government in the name of Governor of Maharashtra. The same reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sachivalaya, Bombay - 32, 23rd October 1961 Order No.ACB-3059V. - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bom.XXII of 1951), the Government of Maharashtra hereby directs that whenever any officer of and above the rank of a Police Sub-Inspector of the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau of the Maharashtra State investigates, at any place in the State, any offence, he shall be deemed to be an officer in the charge of the Police Station within the limits of which such place is situate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The State government has exercised the power under Section 5 of the said Act of 1951 which reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "5. Constitution of Police Force. - Subject to the provisions of this Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> a) The Police Force shall consist of such number in the several ranks and have such organization and such powers, functions and duties as the State Government may by general or special order determine;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> b) The recruitment, pay, allowances and all other conditions of service of the Police Force shall be such as may from time to time be determined by the State Government may by general or special order;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1(i) the rules and orders governing the recruitment, pay, allowances and other conditions of service of the members of the Police Force constituted under any of the Acts mentioned in Part I or II of Sch. I and deemed to be the members of the Police Force under Sec. 3, shall continue in force until altered or cancelled under Cl. (b); but in the case of members of the Police Force constituted under any of the Acts mentioned in Part II or that Schedule such alteration or cancellation shall be subject to the proviso to sub-section (7) of Sec. 115 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 (XXXVII of 1956);</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) nothing in this clause shall apply to the recruitment, pay, allowances and other conditions of service of the members of the Indian Police and Indian Police Service."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The power conferred by the said Section in the State is of determining the powers, functions and duties of police officers. In exercise of the said power, the State can always confer powers of an officer in-charge of a police station on a police officer or a class of police officers. By the said order dated 23rd October 1961, a status of the officer in-charge of the police station has been conferred on any officer of and above the rank of a Police Sub-Inspector of the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau of the Maharashtra State. By a deeming fiction introduced by the said order, when such officer investigates at any place in the State any offence, he shall be deemed to be an officer in-charge of the police station within the limits of which such place is situated. Thus, the officers of certain rank of the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau of the Maharashtra State above have been appointed as the officers in-charge of a police station. That is how the fifth Respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to the Anti-Corruption Bureau registered the First Information Report as an officer in-charge of the police station by virtue of the said order dated 23rd October 1961. The designation of the fifth Respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Mumbai. Therefore, as an officer in-charge of a police station appointed under the said order dated 23rd October 1961, he was empowered to reduce into writing the information relating to the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code. Thus, no illegality can be attached to the First Information Report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Merely because in other parts of the States, the offence is being registered at the police station, Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by the accused. Suffice it to say that the registration of the First Information Report in the present case is legal and valid. Merely because some other procedure is followed in other parts of the State, no case of discrimination or arbitrariness which prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is made out. There is no prejudice to the Petitioner. Hence, we find no merit in the Petition. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the accusations made in the First Information Report. We pass the following order:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is rejected.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Maharashtra and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1102947'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973',
			(int) 1 => 'Section 13(2',
			(int) 2 => 'Prevention of Corruption Act',
			(int) 3 => 'Section 2(s',
			(int) 4 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 5 => 'Article 14 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 6 => 'Section 5',
			(int) 7 => 'Section 5',
			(int) 8 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 9 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 11 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 13 => 'Section 2(s',
			(int) 14 => 'Section 154(A',
			(int) 15 => 'Order No.ACB-3059V.',
			(int) 16 => 'section 5',
			(int) 17 => 'the Bombay Police Act',
			(int) 18 => 'Section 5',
			(int) 19 => 'the State Reorganisation Act',
			(int) 20 => 'Section 154',
			(int) 21 => 'Article 14 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 22 => 'Article 14 of the Constitution of India'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'A.S. Oka',
			(int) 1 => 'Petitioner',
			(int) 2 => 'Schedule'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Sections 7 and',
			(int) 1 => 'The First Information Report',
			(int) 2 => 'Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 3 => 'Vikhroli Police Station',
			(int) 4 => 'Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 5 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 6 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 7 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 8 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 9 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 10 => 'State',
			(int) 11 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 12 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 13 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 14 => 'State',
			(int) 15 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 16 => 'State',
			(int) 17 => 'Anti Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 18 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 19 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 20 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 21 => 'Public Prosecutor',
			(int) 22 => 'State',
			(int) 23 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 24 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 25 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 26 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 27 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 28 => 'the Home Department of the State Government',
			(int) 29 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 30 => 'XXII',
			(int) 31 => 'the Government of Maharashtra',
			(int) 32 => 'the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau',
			(int) 33 => 'Maharashtra State',
			(int) 34 => 'State',
			(int) 35 => 'Maharashtra',
			(int) 36 => 'State',
			(int) 37 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 38 => 'Police Force',
			(int) 39 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 40 => 'the Police Force',
			(int) 41 => 'the Police Force under Sec',
			(int) 42 => 'the Police Force',
			(int) 43 => 'Sec',
			(int) 44 => 'the Indian Police',
			(int) 45 => 'Indian Police Service',
			(int) 46 => 'State',
			(int) 47 => 'State',
			(int) 48 => 'the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau',
			(int) 49 => 'State',
			(int) 50 => 'the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau',
			(int) 51 => 'Maharashtra State',
			(int) 52 => 'the Anti-Corruption Bureau',
			(int) 53 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 54 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
			(int) 55 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 56 => 'the First Information Report',
			(int) 57 => 'State',
			(int) 58 => 'the First Information Report'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1988',
			(int) 1 => '31st October 2012',
			(int) 2 => 'Rs.18,000/-',
			(int) 3 => '1988',
			(int) 4 => '23rd October 1961',
			(int) 5 => '1951',
			(int) 6 => '1951',
			(int) 7 => '1951',
			(int) 8 => '23rd October 1961',
			(int) 9 => 'October 1961',
			(int) 10 => '1951',
			(int) 11 => '1951',
			(int) 12 => '1951',
			(int) 13 => '1956',
			(int) 14 => '1956',
			(int) 15 => '23rd October 1961',
			(int) 16 => '23rd October 1961',
			(int) 17 => '23rd October 1961',
			(int) 18 => '1988'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'fifth',
			(int) 1 => 'first',
			(int) 2 => 'sixth',
			(int) 3 => 'sixth',
			(int) 4 => 'sixth',
			(int) 5 => 'fifth',
			(int) 6 => 'fifth',
			(int) 7 => 'second',
			(int) 8 => 'fifth',
			(int) 9 => 'fifth',
			(int) 10 => 'fifth'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 1 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 2 => 'States',
			(int) 3 => 'City',
			(int) 4 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 5 => 'Mumbai',
			(int) 6 => 'Bombay',
			(int) 7 => 'Mumbai'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '2.',
			(int) 1 => '1',
			(int) 2 => '3.',
			(int) 3 => '1',
			(int) 4 => '154(1',
			(int) 5 => '4',
			(int) 6 => '1',
			(int) 7 => '1',
			(int) 8 => '3',
			(int) 9 => '1',
			(int) 10 => 'zero',
			(int) 11 => '5.',
			(int) 12 => '6',
			(int) 13 => '5',
			(int) 14 => '3',
			(int) 15 => '115',
			(int) 16 => '7',
			(int) 17 => '1',
			(int) 18 => '8'
		),
		'LOC' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Accused'
		),
		'EVENT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'the Bombay Police Act'
		),
		'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT Sachivalaya',
			(int) 1 => 'The Writ Petition'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1102947',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => 'Criminal Writ Petition No.4425 of 2012 ',
			'appellant' => 'Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 226 -<br/> Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482, 2(s), 154(1) â<br/> Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) â<br/> Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 5 â<br/> <br/> Comparative Citations:<br/> 2013 (2) BCR(Cri) 810, 2013 (3) AIR(Bom) R 787',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Mumbai',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-01-29',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'A.S. OKA &amp; A.P. BHANGALE',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> By this Petition, the Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") for quashing an offence registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1988"). The First Information Report was registered by the fifth Respondent-the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. The first Informant is the sixth Respondent. The Petitioner accused was a Police Constable who was at the relevant time attached to Vikhroli Police Station, Mumbai. The allegation against him is of demand of illegal gratification from the sixth Respondent. On the basis of information supplied by the sixth Respondent, a trap was laid on 31st October 2012 when the Petitioner was caught raid-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.18,000/- in cash.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The challenge in this Petition is not on merits. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the fifth Respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted that the Anti Corruption Bureau has not been conferred with the status of a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Code. He urged that under Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code, the First Information Report can be registered only by an officer in-charge of a police station. He submitted that as the Anti Corruption Bureau is not the police station within the meaning of the said Code, even assuming that there is a notification under which the fifth Respondent is made an officer in-charge of the police station, the Anti Corruption Bureau is not at all a police station. He, therefore, submitted that the registration of the First Information Report is illegal. His second submission is based on the practice allegedly followed in other parts of the States. He urged that in other parts of the State whenever any information in relation to the offence under the said Act of 1988 is received by the Anti Corruption Bureau, the offence is registered with the concerned police station having jurisdiction over the area where the offence has been committed. After registration of the offence in the regular police station, the investigation is carried out by the Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted that only in the case of City of Mumbai, a separate procedure is carved out. He submitted that the said procedure adopted by the Anti Corruption Bureau in Mumbai is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as all the Accused are entitled to equal treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> He urged that the reliance placed on Government Resolution dated 23rd October 1961 will not help the State as it is, in as much as the same does not confer a status of police station on the Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted the Notification has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1951"). He urged that Section 5 of the said Act of 1951 does not confer a power on the State to declare Anti Corruption Bureau as a Police Station. He, therefore, submitted that the action of the registration of the First Information Report by the fifth Respondent itself is an illegal and, therefore, the First Information Report deserves to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that an offence has been registered by the Assistant Commissioner of Police who has been conferred the status of an officer in-charge of the police station. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that merely because some other procedure followed in other parts of the State, the First Information Report is not rendered illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code which reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "154(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. On plain reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code, it does cast an obligation on an officer officer-in-charge of the police station to reduce into writing every information received by him relating to the commission of a cognizable office even if it is given orally. Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code confers a power on such officer in-charge of a police station to reduce the information in writing and register what is known as the First Information Report. The power has been specifically conferred on a police officer who is designated as an officer in-charge of the police station. The power to reduce in writing the information received regarding commission of cognizable offence is not conferred on a police station but is conferred on an officer who is an officer in-charge of a police station. A police station is nothing but a post or place including a local area. It is nothing but headquarter of police for a local area concerned. Even Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the said Code provides for the procedure in case of refusal on the part of the said officer to register the offence. Thus, in Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code, there is no power conferred on a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Code to register an offence. We may take a note of a practice consistently followed when an officer incharge of a police station who is posted in a police station receives an information regarding commission of cognizable offence, which is committed within the jurisdiction of some other police station. In such a case, the officer in-charge of the police station can record the First Information Report under a zero number and transfer it to the police station concerned having jurisdiction or local limits for the purposes of investigation. Thus, an offence is to be registered not by a "police station" but by an officer-in-charge of a police station. As stated earlier, a "police station" is a building or a premises or a post or a place declared by the State Government as such. The action contemplated by Section 154(A) of the said code is to be taken by an individual police officer named as an officer-in-charge of a police station.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. At this stage, a reference will have to be made to the Government Resolution dated 23rd October 1961 issued by the Secretary to the Home Department of the State Government in the name of Governor of Maharashtra. The same reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sachivalaya, Bombay - 32, 23rd October 1961 Order No.ACB-3059V. - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bom.XXII of 1951), the Government of Maharashtra hereby directs that whenever any officer of and above the rank of a Police Sub-Inspector of the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau of the Maharashtra State investigates, at any place in the State, any offence, he shall be deemed to be an officer in the charge of the Police Station within the limits of which such place is situate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The State government has exercised the power under Section 5 of the said Act of 1951 which reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "5. Constitution of Police Force. - Subject to the provisions of this Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> a) The Police Force shall consist of such number in the several ranks and have such organization and such powers, functions and duties as the State Government may by general or special order determine;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> b) The recruitment, pay, allowances and all other conditions of service of the Police Force shall be such as may from time to time be determined by the State Government may by general or special order;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1(i) the rules and orders governing the recruitment, pay, allowances and other conditions of service of the members of the Police Force constituted under any of the Acts mentioned in Part I or II of Sch. I and deemed to be the members of the Police Force under Sec. 3, shall continue in force until altered or cancelled under Cl. (b); but in the case of members of the Police Force constituted under any of the Acts mentioned in Part II or that Schedule such alteration or cancellation shall be subject to the proviso to sub-section (7) of Sec. 115 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 (XXXVII of 1956);</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) nothing in this clause shall apply to the recruitment, pay, allowances and other conditions of service of the members of the Indian Police and Indian Police Service."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The power conferred by the said Section in the State is of determining the powers, functions and duties of police officers. In exercise of the said power, the State can always confer powers of an officer in-charge of a police station on a police officer or a class of police officers. By the said order dated 23rd October 1961, a status of the officer in-charge of the police station has been conferred on any officer of and above the rank of a Police Sub-Inspector of the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau of the Maharashtra State. By a deeming fiction introduced by the said order, when such officer investigates at any place in the State any offence, he shall be deemed to be an officer in-charge of the police station within the limits of which such place is situated. Thus, the officers of certain rank of the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau of the Maharashtra State above have been appointed as the officers in-charge of a police station. That is how the fifth Respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to the Anti-Corruption Bureau registered the First Information Report as an officer in-charge of the police station by virtue of the said order dated 23rd October 1961. The designation of the fifth Respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Mumbai. Therefore, as an officer in-charge of a police station appointed under the said order dated 23rd October 1961, he was empowered to reduce into writing the information relating to the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code. Thus, no illegality can be attached to the First Information Report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Merely because in other parts of the States, the offence is being registered at the police station, Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by the accused. Suffice it to say that the registration of the First Information Report in the present case is legal and valid. Merely because some other procedure is followed in other parts of the State, no case of discrimination or arbitrariness which prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is made out. There is no prejudice to the Petitioner. Hence, we find no merit in the Petition. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the accusations made in the First Information Report. We pass the following order:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is rejected.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Maharashtra and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1102947'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973',
		(int) 1 => 'Section 13(2',
		(int) 2 => 'Prevention of Corruption Act',
		(int) 3 => 'Section 2(s',
		(int) 4 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 5 => 'Article 14 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 6 => 'Section 5',
		(int) 7 => 'Section 5',
		(int) 8 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 9 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 11 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 13 => 'Section 2(s',
		(int) 14 => 'Section 154(A',
		(int) 15 => 'Order No.ACB-3059V.',
		(int) 16 => 'section 5',
		(int) 17 => 'the Bombay Police Act',
		(int) 18 => 'Section 5',
		(int) 19 => 'the State Reorganisation Act',
		(int) 20 => 'Section 154',
		(int) 21 => 'Article 14 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 22 => 'Article 14 of the Constitution of India'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'A.S. Oka',
		(int) 1 => 'Petitioner',
		(int) 2 => 'Schedule'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Sections 7 and',
		(int) 1 => 'The First Information Report',
		(int) 2 => 'Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 3 => 'Vikhroli Police Station',
		(int) 4 => 'Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 5 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 6 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 7 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 8 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 9 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 10 => 'State',
		(int) 11 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 12 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 13 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 14 => 'State',
		(int) 15 => 'the Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 16 => 'State',
		(int) 17 => 'Anti Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 18 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 19 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 20 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 21 => 'Public Prosecutor',
		(int) 22 => 'State',
		(int) 23 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 24 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 25 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 26 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 27 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 28 => 'the Home Department of the State Government',
		(int) 29 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 30 => 'XXII',
		(int) 31 => 'the Government of Maharashtra',
		(int) 32 => 'the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau',
		(int) 33 => 'Maharashtra State',
		(int) 34 => 'State',
		(int) 35 => 'Maharashtra',
		(int) 36 => 'State',
		(int) 37 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 38 => 'Police Force',
		(int) 39 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 40 => 'the Police Force',
		(int) 41 => 'the Police Force under Sec',
		(int) 42 => 'the Police Force',
		(int) 43 => 'Sec',
		(int) 44 => 'the Indian Police',
		(int) 45 => 'Indian Police Service',
		(int) 46 => 'State',
		(int) 47 => 'State',
		(int) 48 => 'the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau',
		(int) 49 => 'State',
		(int) 50 => 'the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau',
		(int) 51 => 'Maharashtra State',
		(int) 52 => 'the Anti-Corruption Bureau',
		(int) 53 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 54 => 'the Prevention of Corruption Act',
		(int) 55 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 56 => 'the First Information Report',
		(int) 57 => 'State',
		(int) 58 => 'the First Information Report'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1988',
		(int) 1 => '31st October 2012',
		(int) 2 => 'Rs.18,000/-',
		(int) 3 => '1988',
		(int) 4 => '23rd October 1961',
		(int) 5 => '1951',
		(int) 6 => '1951',
		(int) 7 => '1951',
		(int) 8 => '23rd October 1961',
		(int) 9 => 'October 1961',
		(int) 10 => '1951',
		(int) 11 => '1951',
		(int) 12 => '1951',
		(int) 13 => '1956',
		(int) 14 => '1956',
		(int) 15 => '23rd October 1961',
		(int) 16 => '23rd October 1961',
		(int) 17 => '23rd October 1961',
		(int) 18 => '1988'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'fifth',
		(int) 1 => 'first',
		(int) 2 => 'sixth',
		(int) 3 => 'sixth',
		(int) 4 => 'sixth',
		(int) 5 => 'fifth',
		(int) 6 => 'fifth',
		(int) 7 => 'second',
		(int) 8 => 'fifth',
		(int) 9 => 'fifth',
		(int) 10 => 'fifth'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 1 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 2 => 'States',
		(int) 3 => 'City',
		(int) 4 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 5 => 'Mumbai',
		(int) 6 => 'Bombay',
		(int) 7 => 'Mumbai'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '2.',
		(int) 1 => '1',
		(int) 2 => '3.',
		(int) 3 => '1',
		(int) 4 => '154(1',
		(int) 5 => '4',
		(int) 6 => '1',
		(int) 7 => '1',
		(int) 8 => '3',
		(int) 9 => '1',
		(int) 10 => 'zero',
		(int) 11 => '5.',
		(int) 12 => '6',
		(int) 13 => '5',
		(int) 14 => '3',
		(int) 15 => '115',
		(int) 16 => '7',
		(int) 17 => '1',
		(int) 18 => '8'
	),
	'LOC' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Accused'
	),
	'EVENT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'the Bombay Police Act'
	),
	'WORK_OF_ART' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT Sachivalaya',
		(int) 1 => 'The Writ Petition'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1102947',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => 'Criminal Writ Petition No.4425 of 2012 ',
		'appellant' => 'Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Bhumsingh Udaysingh Kachhway Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 226 -<br/> Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482, 2(s), 154(1) â<br/> Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) â<br/> Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 5 â<br/> <br/> Comparative Citations:<br/> 2013 (2) BCR(Cri) 810, 2013 (3) AIR(Bom) R 787',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Mumbai',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-01-29',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'A.S. OKA &amp; A.P. BHANGALE',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Oral Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> By this Petition, the Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") for quashing an offence registered under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1988"). The First Information Report was registered by the fifth Respondent-the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai. The first Informant is the sixth Respondent. The Petitioner accused was a Police Constable who was at the relevant time attached to Vikhroli Police Station, Mumbai. The allegation against him is of demand of illegal gratification from the sixth Respondent. On the basis of information supplied by the sixth Respondent, a trap was laid on 31st October 2012 when the Petitioner was caught raid-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.18,000/- in cash.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The challenge in this Petition is not on merits. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the fifth Respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted that the Anti Corruption Bureau has not been conferred with the status of a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Code. He urged that under Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code, the First Information Report can be registered only by an officer in-charge of a police station. He submitted that as the Anti Corruption Bureau is not the police station within the meaning of the said Code, even assuming that there is a notification under which the fifth Respondent is made an officer in-charge of the police station, the Anti Corruption Bureau is not at all a police station. He, therefore, submitted that the registration of the First Information Report is illegal. His second submission is based on the practice allegedly followed in other parts of the States. He urged that in other parts of the State whenever any information in relation to the offence under the said Act of 1988 is received by the Anti Corruption Bureau, the offence is registered with the concerned police station having jurisdiction over the area where the offence has been committed. After registration of the offence in the regular police station, the investigation is carried out by the Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted that only in the case of City of Mumbai, a separate procedure is carved out. He submitted that the said procedure adopted by the Anti Corruption Bureau in Mumbai is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in as much as all the Accused are entitled to equal treatment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> He urged that the reliance placed on Government Resolution dated 23rd October 1961 will not help the State as it is, in as much as the same does not confer a status of police station on the Anti Corruption Bureau. He submitted the Notification has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1951"). He urged that Section 5 of the said Act of 1951 does not confer a power on the State to declare Anti Corruption Bureau as a Police Station. He, therefore, submitted that the action of the registration of the First Information Report by the fifth Respondent itself is an illegal and, therefore, the First Information Report deserves to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that an offence has been registered by the Assistant Commissioner of Police who has been conferred the status of an officer in-charge of the police station. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that merely because some other procedure followed in other parts of the State, the First Information Report is not rendered illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code which reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "154(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. On plain reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code, it does cast an obligation on an officer officer-in-charge of the police station to reduce into writing every information received by him relating to the commission of a cognizable office even if it is given orally. Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code confers a power on such officer in-charge of a police station to reduce the information in writing and register what is known as the First Information Report. The power has been specifically conferred on a police officer who is designated as an officer in-charge of the police station. The power to reduce in writing the information received regarding commission of cognizable offence is not conferred on a police station but is conferred on an officer who is an officer in-charge of a police station. A police station is nothing but a post or place including a local area. It is nothing but headquarter of police for a local area concerned. Even Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the said Code provides for the procedure in case of refusal on the part of the said officer to register the offence. Thus, in Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code, there is no power conferred on a police station within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Code to register an offence. We may take a note of a practice consistently followed when an officer incharge of a police station who is posted in a police station receives an information regarding commission of cognizable offence, which is committed within the jurisdiction of some other police station. In such a case, the officer in-charge of the police station can record the First Information Report under a zero number and transfer it to the police station concerned having jurisdiction or local limits for the purposes of investigation. Thus, an offence is to be registered not by a "police station" but by an officer-in-charge of a police station. As stated earlier, a "police station" is a building or a premises or a post or a place declared by the State Government as such. The action contemplated by Section 154(A) of the said code is to be taken by an individual police officer named as an officer-in-charge of a police station.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. At this stage, a reference will have to be made to the Government Resolution dated 23rd October 1961 issued by the Secretary to the Home Department of the State Government in the name of Governor of Maharashtra. The same reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Sachivalaya, Bombay - 32, 23rd October 1961 Order No.ACB-3059V. - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bom.XXII of 1951), the Government of Maharashtra hereby directs that whenever any officer of and above the rank of a Police Sub-Inspector of the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau of the Maharashtra State investigates, at any place in the State, any offence, he shall be deemed to be an officer in the charge of the Police Station within the limits of which such place is situate.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. The State government has exercised the power under Section 5 of the said Act of 1951 which reads thus:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> "5. Constitution of Police Force. - Subject to the provisions of this Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> a) The Police Force shall consist of such number in the several ranks and have such organization and such powers, functions and duties as the State Government may by general or special order determine;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> b) The recruitment, pay, allowances and all other conditions of service of the Police Force shall be such as may from time to time be determined by the State Government may by general or special order;</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that -</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1(i) the rules and orders governing the recruitment, pay, allowances and other conditions of service of the members of the Police Force constituted under any of the Acts mentioned in Part I or II of Sch. I and deemed to be the members of the Police Force under Sec. 3, shall continue in force until altered or cancelled under Cl. (b); but in the case of members of the Police Force constituted under any of the Acts mentioned in Part II or that Schedule such alteration or cancellation shall be subject to the proviso to sub-section (7) of Sec. 115 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 (XXXVII of 1956);</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) nothing in this clause shall apply to the recruitment, pay, allowances and other conditions of service of the members of the Indian Police and Indian Police Service."</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The power conferred by the said Section in the State is of determining the powers, functions and duties of police officers. In exercise of the said power, the State can always confer powers of an officer in-charge of a police station on a police officer or a class of police officers. By the said order dated 23rd October 1961, a status of the officer in-charge of the police station has been conferred on any officer of and above the rank of a Police Sub-Inspector of the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau of the Maharashtra State. By a deeming fiction introduced by the said order, when such officer investigates at any place in the State any offence, he shall be deemed to be an officer in-charge of the police station within the limits of which such place is situated. Thus, the officers of certain rank of the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau of the Maharashtra State above have been appointed as the officers in-charge of a police station. That is how the fifth Respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Police attached to the Anti-Corruption Bureau registered the First Information Report as an officer in-charge of the police station by virtue of the said order dated 23rd October 1961. The designation of the fifth Respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Mumbai. Therefore, as an officer in-charge of a police station appointed under the said order dated 23rd October 1961, he was empowered to reduce into writing the information relating to the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the said Code. Thus, no illegality can be attached to the First Information Report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. Merely because in other parts of the States, the offence is being registered at the police station, Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by the accused. Suffice it to say that the registration of the First Information Report in the present case is legal and valid. Merely because some other procedure is followed in other parts of the State, no case of discrimination or arbitrariness which prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is made out. There is no prejudice to the Petitioner. Hence, we find no merit in the Petition. We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the accusations made in the First Information Report. We pass the following order:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> ORDER</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The Writ Petition is rejected.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Maharashtra and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1102947'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 13(2, Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 2(s, Section 154, Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Section 5, Section 5, Section 154, Section 154, Section 154, Section 154, Section 154, Section 2(s, Section 154(A, Order No.ACB-3059V., section 5, the Bombay Police Act, Section 5, the State Reorganisation Act, Section 154, Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Article 14 of the Constitution of India

PERSON: A.S. Oka, Petitioner, Schedule

ORG: Sections 7 and, The First Information Report, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vikhroli Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau, the Anti Corruption Bureau, the First Information Report, the Anti Corruption Bureau, the Anti Corruption Bureau, the First Information Report, State, the Anti Corruption Bureau, the Anti Corruption Bureau, the Anti Corruption Bureau, State, the Anti Corruption Bureau, State, Anti Corruption Bureau, the First Information Report, the First Information Report, Public Prosecutor, Public Prosecutor, State, the First Information Report, the State Government, the First Information Report, the First Information Report, the State Government, the Home Department of the State Government, Maharashtra, XXII, the Government of Maharashtra, the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau, Maharashtra State, State, Maharashtra, State, the State Government, Police Force, the State Government, the Police Force, the Police Force under Sec, the Police Force, Sec, the Indian Police, Indian Police Service, State, State, the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau, State, the Anti-Corruption and Prohibition Intelligence Bureau, Maharashtra State, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the First Information Report, the Prevention of Corruption Act, the First Information Report, the First Information Report, State, the First Information Report

DATE: 1988, 31st October 2012, Rs.18,000/-, 1988, 23rd October 1961, 1951, 1951, 1951, 23rd October 1961, October 1961, 1951, 1951, 1951, 1956, 1956, 23rd October 1961, 23rd October 1961, 23rd October 1961, 1988

ORDINAL: fifth, first, sixth, sixth, sixth, fifth, fifth, second, fifth, fifth, fifth

GPE: Mumbai, Mumbai, States, City, Mumbai, Mumbai, Bombay, Mumbai

CARDINAL: 2., 1, 3., 1, 154(1, 4, 1, 1, 3, 1, zero, 5., 6, 5, 3, 115, 7, 1, 8

LOC: Accused

EVENT: the Bombay Police Act

WORK_OF_ART: GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HOME DEPARTMENT Sachivalaya, The Writ Petition