1 3180merchant rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3180 OF 2010 Rajesh Jaswantlal Solanki Aged 45 yrs, Occu: Business Residing at Rm no.60-1,6th floor, Shikhar Tower,Gokuldas Pasta Lane, Nr.Chitra Cinema,Dadar (E) Mumbai-14. .. Petitioner vs 1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai 2.The Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, V.T.Mumbai 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Opp GPO V.T.Mumbai 4. The Sr.Inspector of Police, MRA Marg police station,Mumbai 5. Mr.Ravindra K.Doiphode Then Investigating Officer,presently posted at ATS, Mumbai 7. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr.Rizwan Merchant with Mr.Swapnil Wagh for Petitioner Mr.K.V.Saste APP for Respondent nos.1 to 4 and 6 Mr.M.K.Kocharekar i,b Mr.Rajeev Sawant for 2 3180merchant Respondent no.5 CORAM: P.V.HARDAS & N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 14th March, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per P.V.Hardas, J ) 1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks oral leave to correct serial Number 7 which should be taken as respondent No.6. Leave granted. Correction be carried out. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. We have heard learned APP who appears for respondent nos. 1,2,3 and 4 and 6 and heard counsel for respondent no.5. 4. This is a Petition filed under Article 226 of 3 3180merchant the Constitution of India by which the Petitioner prays for following reliefs : (I)That under the circumstances this Hon ble Court be pleased to form a Special Investigation Team to conduct further investigation in the case of Petitioner. (II) That this Hon ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent no. 3 and 4 to hand over investigation/case papers of MECR 23/2006 registered by the officers of MRA Police station to the hands of such a officer to whom this Hon ble court is pleased to appoint to conduct investigation in the case of the Petitioner. (III) That this Hon ble Court be pleased to issue notice to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and other officers to show cause why action should not be taken against them failure to conduct their duty and investigation in the case and for not taking action against the officers who were involved in false implication of the petitioner in the possession of Narcotics for which minimum sentence is 10 years and fine of 1 lac rupees. (IV) That this Hon ble Court be pleased to direct the State Government to initiate necessary departmental inquiry and stringent action against all such Police officers who were part and parcel of causing delay in investigation in a Narcotics Case where commercial quantity of narcotics and foreign made weapon was planted on a innocent petitioner. 4 3180merchant (V) For such other relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. 5. According to us,at this stage it is not necessary to advert to the facts of the present case as reference to the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 28th January, 2011 is eloquent. The Division Bench by an order dated 28th January, 2011 while considering the Petition recorded the statement made by the learned APP that the Commissioner of Police had instituted a new team to investigate the offence in question and the investigation was now entrusted to the crime branch to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and it would be monitored by the Joint Commissioner of Police. The Division Bench also recorded that name of the Investigation Officer who was Mr.Nisar Tamboli. The Division Bench further recorded the statement of the learned APP that none of the police officials who were associated with 5 3180merchant the investigation of the case at earlier point of time would participate in the investigation now entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner of police Mr.Nisar Tamboli. The Division Bench then observed that it was left to the newly investigating agency to examine all aspects of the matter and independently investigate the case on hand, not being influenced by any of the findings of the earlier Investigating Officer. The Division bench expressed hope that the investigating team would proceed in accordance with law. The Division Bench thereafter held As at present, we do not intend to examine the grievance of the Petitioner which in our opinion, is pre-mature. It is only after the newly- appointed investigating team proceeds with the investigation, and if the Petitioner is able to demonstrate that even the new investigating team has messed up the investigation, he will be free to bring that position to the notice of the Court which grievance can be considered on its own 6 3180merchant merits. The Court thereafter deferred the hearing of the Petition. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. In the light of the fact that investigation has now been entrusted to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and none of the police officials who were associated with the investigation at earlier stage are associated with the present investigation, according to us, grievance of the Petitioner made in the Petition would stand fully redressed. The Division Bench has further given liberty to the Petitioner to file appropriate proceedings by bringing it to the notice of the Court in the event investigation is found messed up by the present Investigating Officer. In the light of the fact that such liberty is granted to the Petitioner, we do not consider it necessary to examine further pleas of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 7 3180merchant Learned counsel for the Petitioner expressed an apprehension that the investigation would not be completed within the stipulated period as is contemplated by section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. Learned APP states on instructions from PSI Devorkar who is present in Court that the investigation would be completed expeditiously and the charge sheet would be filed before the end of April, 2011 in respect of the accused who had been arrested. In respect of the accused who are absconding a supplementary charge sheet would be filed as soon as those accused are traced and arrested. We accept the aforesaid statement as undertaking to the Court. 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts, we make Rule absolute in terms of order of the Division Bench dated 28th January,2011 and statement made by learned APP which is accepted by us as an undertaking to this Court. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. We grant 8 3180merchant liberty to the Petitioner as was granted by order of this Court dated 28th January,2011. (N.D. Deshpande, J) (P.V.Hardas, J)