Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Respondents No.1 and 2, A.S.I. and Police Constable respectively, were facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 330, 324, 323, 354, 166 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in clubbed trial R.C.C. No.157/1998 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani. In the prosecution of R.C.C. No.157/1998 filed by Police Station, Basmatnagar, the complaint filed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, R.C.C. No.424/1993 was merged, in which evidence before charge had been recorded and charge was also framed. Thereafter, in R.C.C. No.157/1998, respondents accused No.1 and 2 filed application Exhibit 46 invoking Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as the Police Act in brief), claiming that the complaint filed by Magistrate as well as the charge sheet filed by the police regarding the offence alleged was time barred as the incident complained of that they had beaten complainant Shantabai and her husband and outraged modesty of the lady while she...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.912 OF2021[@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.1676 of 2021]. Rahmat Khan @ Rammu Bismillah ...Appellant(s) Versus Deputy Commissioner of Police Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is against a final judgment and order dated 29th January, 2021 passed by the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition No.490 of 2018 filed by the Appellant, challenging an order of Externment dated 07.05.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Amravati City, under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, whereby the Appellant has been directed not to enter or return to Amravati City or Amravati Rural District for a period of one year from the date on which he leaves, or is taken out of Amravati City and/or Amravati Rural District.3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the impugned Externment Order are extracted he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2008)110BOMLR2604
A.A. Kumbhkoni, J.1. This is a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a detenu who is presently detained at Central Prison Thane. This petition questions validity of order of detention being D.O. No. 123/PCB/DP/Zone -II/2007 dated 23 rd October 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ''the impugned order '' for the sake of brevity), issued under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ''the said Act'' for the sake of brevity), passed against the detenu by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai. 2. On 7th September 2007 Senior Inspector of Police of Pydhonie Police Station, Mumbai submitted a proposal for detention of the detenu under the said Act. The detaining authorities considered and scrutinized the material placed before it and upon its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1969CriLJ557; (1969)GLR537; (1968)IILLJ55Guj
1. This is a revision application, filed by the State under Ss. 435 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order, passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Narol, Sri R. C. Ierani, in a Special Case No. 2 of 1964, dismissing the prosecution of the accused-opponent for the offences, punishable under Ss. 161, 165 and 165A of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. That prosecution was dismissed on the ground that the prosecution has been launched beyond a period of six months, prescribed in S. 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 2. The facts leading rise to this revision petition are briefly stated as under. 3. On 21 July, 1963, the opponent was working as a police head constable in the Police Department of the Government of Gujarat and was attached to the police station at Dehgam. As such, he was a public servant. The offences, punishable under Ss. 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, were alleged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
S.S. Shinde,J. 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the Counsels for the parties. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, in one of the crime out of three cases registered against him with Tophkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar the petitioner is already tried and trial ended in acquittal. It is submitted that, though specific ground was taken in reply that, the petitioner is acquitted, however, the respondent authorities have not considered the said fact and therefore, an externment proceedings stands vitiated. It is further submitted two cases registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.168/2010 and rime No.73/2012 are still pending and in both the cases the petitioner is on bail. It is further submitted that, the mandate of Section 56 (1) (a) (b) of the Bombay Police Act has not been followed by the respondent authorities inasmuch as it is not mentioned in the show cause notice as well as externment order that, the activi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2836
1. The only question involved for consideration is whether there ought to be a reasonable connection or nexus between the alleged act and the duty or authority imposed upon a Police Officer in order to attract the application of Rule 349 of the Police Rules, 1960.2. How the question has arisen will be revealed by the following facts. On January 4, 1990 one Sher Singh was arrested by the Officer-Incharge of police station, Marwah Tehsil Kishtwar for interrogation in a murder case (FIR No. 13 of 1989 under Section 302, RPC). He died on 15-1-1990 while in custody. His father Sh. Jai Ram complained to Superintendent of Police, Doda, that he died in Police Custody due to police torture. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Crime Branch, on whose finding the Director General of Police Sh. J. N. Sexena vide letter dated 10-8-1991 approached the Government for grant of sanction to the prosecution of the accused in terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR852; 2005(5)BomCR294
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Sudam Bhausaheb Bhalekar-respondent herein was recruited as police constable in the police department on 1.7.1970. He was promoted as head constable somewhere in the year 1982. In the month of May, 1993, he was attached to Khadki Police Station. On 28.5.1993, one complaint was made against him by Ramesh Babanrao Ranaware that he was demanding bribe for returning his tempo and its documents which had met with an accident. Based on that complaint, the trap was laid by Anti Corruption Department and he was trapped accepting illegal gratification. He was tried before the Special Court, Pune for the offence punishable under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Upon conclusion of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune vide his judgment and order dated 19.10.2001 convicted him for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(5)BomCR156; 1999(3)MhLj541
ORDERVishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who has described herself as wife of the detenu Deepak Virappa Sonde has impugned the detention order dated 17-10-1998 passed by the First Respondent Mr. B.S. Mohite, Commissioner of Police, Thane, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Mah. Act No. LV of 1981). The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 17-10-1998 was served on the detenu on 17-10-1998 itself. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and C respectively to this writ petition.The prejudicial activities of the detenu necessitating the issuance of the impugned detention order are contained in the grounds of detention but, since in our view, a reference to them is not necessary for dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1980Bom93; (1980)82BOMLR76
Madon, J.1. In a Writ Petition filed on the Original Side of this High Court by one Durgadas Shankarrao Rege, the First Respondent in both these appeals, against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the State of Maharashtra, the learned single Judge of this High Court held that Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 298, Section 299 and Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 301 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (Bombay Act No. III of 1888) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), were void as infringing the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and set aside a notice dated February 1, 1974 issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner under Section 299 of the Act against the First Respondent, intimating to him that he intended to take possession of unbuilt open land belonging to the First Respondent falling within the regular line of the street after the expiry of seven days from the service of the said notice. The learned Judge also issued a writ direct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR649; 2008(2)BomCR575; (2008)110BOMLR512; 2008(4)MhLj553
J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. We propose to dispose of the three petitions by a common judgment and order as it raises common issues, the facts are not much disputed and it raises identical questions for decision. 3. The State of Maharashtra has impugned the orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 512 of 1994 filed by Mr. Vinayak Raosaheb Patil, Ex. Inspector of Police and Original Application No. 590 of 1994 filed by Mr. Suhas P. Kalamkar, Ex. Inspector of Police which has been disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 3rd December 1997. The third one relates to an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 280 of 1996 filed by Ashok Hari Khedkar, Ex.Inspector of Police which came to be disposed of by a judgment and order dated 27th March 1997. 4. The then Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, in the case of all the three Police Officers, who were at the relevant tim...
Tag this Judgment!