1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No.250 of 2010 [Madnay alias Karapa Shankar Atram Vs. State of Mah. & anothr] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Petition received by Post. Mr. V.A. Thakre, APP for respondents. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 30th November, 2010. 1. This is a Letter-Petition. 2. Petitioner claims that he was arrested on more than thirteen occasions in false cases registered against him. He further contends that he has been kept in police custody and sometimes in Magisterial custody by every time arresting him under a new offence or offence registered in past. 3. Petitioner also claims that he has been acquitted in fifteen cases, as evidence is not available against him and four cases are still pending. 4. This Court had passed order on 6th 2 September, 2010 and gave detailed directions for production of information of pending cases etc. The chart has been produced. 5. Now, it has come on record that old crimes [FIRs] are not pending in which the petitioner is not arrested so far. 6. This clarification by the Authority would operate as sufficient assurance to the petitioner that now even if he is released in any of the cases, he would not be arrested by taking shelter of any pending crime. 7. In so far as cases, which are shown pending, are concerned, the petitioner will have to undergo the process of law. 8. The purpose of this petition is substantially served by virtue of production of the information ordered by this Court. Therefore, it is not necessary to pass any further orders. 9. In this Court s order dated 6 th September, 2010, this Court had directed the District Judge, Gadchiroli, to explain the circumstances in which he had filed affidavit. It is seen that the District Judge has submitted the reply which is dated 5th October, 2010. It is seen from it that because of the letter sent to the District Judge by the Office 3 of Govt. Pleader, High Court, Nagpur Bench, asking para-wise comments and to file reply, the reply was filed. This Court has perused the reply as well as letter written by the Office of Govt. Pleader. 10. The explanation furnished by the District Judge is plausible, and is accepted. However, had the matter been attended differently, avoidable exercise in which the District Judge has fallen, could have been prevented. 11. We are of the view that the affidavit of District Judge was called by the Office of Public Prosecutor without any need and justification, whatsoever. The petition did not contain any allegation against the District Judge, nor was any reply required. 12. The Public Prosecutor is directed to take note of inconvenience suffered by the District Judge, Gadchiroli, and issue appropriate orders to his office and other Law Officers, to avoid filing of unnecessary affidavits, as has occurred in this case. 13. Normally, District Judge ought to have responded to the Govt. Pleader s letter by asking copy of petition, and after scrutinizing contents thereof, by informing the Govt. Pleader 4 that the Office of District Judge, or the District Judge had no concern in the matter. 14. Copy of this order be sent to the District Judge for information only. 15. Petition is accordingly disposed of. Judge Judge |Hedau|