1 5WP.1441-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1441 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1441 OF 2011 Mohd. Atik Iqbal & Anr. ..Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .......... Ms. Farhana Shah & M.K. Kocharekar, amicus curiae for the Petitioners. Mrs. A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the Respondent – State. .......... CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR AND P. D. KODE, JJ. DATED : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. This Petition is received through jail. Twofold grievance is made. Primarily, the grievance is that the petitioners were not produced before the Court on 2.5.2011. That fact has been refuted by the respondents. The respondents are relying on the Roznama recorded by the concerned trial Judge dated 2.5.2011 which reads thus : PPD 2 5WP.1441-11 “Dt.2.5.2011 MCOC Spl.4/09 Coram H.H.Addl.Spl.Judge Shri R.G.Avachat (CR 55) SPP Shri Raja Thakare for State present. IO Sr. PI Daphale attached to DCB CID Unit IV present. Accused nos.9, 12, 13 & 19 produced from JC. Other accused not produced. Adv.Amin Solkar for accused nos.15 & 16 present. Adv.Farhana Shah for accused 19-Dastagir present. Adjourned to 18/05/2011.” 2. The petitioners before this Court are accused Nos.9, 12, 13 & 19. Going by this Roznama, there can be no manner of doubt that the petitioners were duly produced before the concerned Court. Learned amicus curiae, however, in support of the grievance made by the petitioners in the letter Petition, submits that even she is personally aware about the fact that the petitioners were produced before the Court after the Court working hours. It is not possible to accept such grievance made across the bar and, more so, ignoring the facts stated in the Roznama dated 2.5.2011 by the concerned Judge. If the petitioners had any doubt about the fact so recorded, they could have moved the concerned Court for correction of the record of the Court. As a matter of fact, the learned amicus curiae Ms.Farhana Shah is appearing for accused Nos.9 & 19 in the same proceedings. She appeared on 2.5.2011 as 3 5WP.1441-11 well as on subsequent dates, but, no attempt has been made to get the order corrected that accused Nos.9, 12, 13 & 19 were produced before the learned Magistrate after the Court working hours. It is not possible to assume to the contrary. In the circumstances, the first grievance made by the petitioners is devoid of merits. 3. The other grievance made in the Petition is about the conduct of the escort party qua the petitioners. Insofar as that grievance is concerned, we had directed the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai to cause an enquiry into the allegations and submit report. A report has been submitted on 5.8.2011 under the signature of Suresh Pawar, Assistant Police Commissioner, Crime Branch. Perusal of the said report clearly indicates that the allegations made by the petitioners are out of spite against the escort party, who did not allow the relatives of the petitioners to meet them and also deprived the petitioners of home-foods. We have no reason to discard that finding reached by the Officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police. 4 5WP.1441-11 4. In our opinion, the Petition is devoid of merit. Same deserves to be dismissed. Hence, Petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, the accompanying Criminal Application is also disposed of. (P. D. KODE, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)