1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.392 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.216 OF 2008 Sambhaji @ Dada Narayan Konde ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. K.S. Patil with Mr. Prashant Hagare for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Borulkar, PP with Mrs. U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the State. .... CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI and, DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ. 12th August, 2008. P.C. : 1. On 19th June, 2008 a Division Bench of this Court (Mr. Justice B.H. Marlapalle and Mr. Justice J.H. Bhatia) appointed Mr. S.B. Panse, Retired District and Sessions Judge to conduct an enquiry inter alia into the allegations made by the Petitioner and others that officers of Kothrud Police Station have given ill- treatment to the Petitioner and two jewellers. The Division Bench also directed that in the meanwhile and until the enquiry is conducted, Respondent No.4 – Brahmanand Naikwadi, Police Sub- Inspector, Kothrud Police Station shall be transferred from Kothrud Police Station by the competent authority forthwith until further 2 orders. The Division Bench further directed that the transfer shall be beyond the Pune Revenue Division. The Petitioner's grievance is that the said direction has not been complied with. In this Petition he is inter alia seeking a direction to the Respondents to forthwith comply with the said direction. 2. Mr. Borulkar, Learned P.P. assisted by Ms. Kejriwal submitted that on 7th August, 2008 Mr. Brahmanand Naikwadi has already been transferred to Thane, beyond the Pune Revenue Division and therefore the direction has been complied with. 3. The direction contained in paragraph 11 reads as under : “In the meanwhile and until the inquiry is completed, the respondent no.4 shall be transferred from the Kothrud Police Station by the Competent Authority forthwith until further orders and the transfer shall be beyond the Pune Revenue Division.” Therefore the Division Bench had directed that the Fourth Respondent should be transferred forthwith. Mr. Borulkar submitted that the transfer orders could not be issued immediately because the order dated 19th June, 2008 reached the office of the Director General of Police on 30th June, 2008. Office of the 3 Director General of Police sent directions to transfer Respondent No.4 to Thane to the office of the Commissioner of Police Pune on 17th July, 2008 and after following the necessary formalities the Fourth Respondent was transferred on 7th August, 2008. 4. We are of the opinion that since the Division Bench had directed that Respondent No.4 should be transferred forthwith, the Respondents should have taken immediate action and transferred the Fourth Respondent. The object of transfer was obviously to avoid the possibility of the Fourth Respondent influencing the witnesses. We are not happy about the lethargic manner in which the Respondents have handled this matter. But, since the enquiry is in progress, we do not want to express anything more on this aspect. However, it will be open to the Petitioner to make all submissions which are available to him on account of the fact that the Fourth Respondent was not transferred immediately as per order dated 19th June, 2008 before the Enquiry Officer and if such submissions are made, the Enquiry Officer shall deal with them independently and uninfluenced by any observations made by us in this order. Since the Fourth Respondent is transferred, the Petition does not survive and stands 4 disposed of as such. We, however, make it clear that all the contentions of both the parties are kept open. In view of the disposal of the Petition, Criminal Application 216 of 2008 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)