((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.993 OF 2008 Nisar Ahmed Faisal Ahmed Shaikh Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Vishal Ingavale for petitioner. Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP for respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND A.A.KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : 21st August 2008 PC : 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was kept in custody without any authority of law from 9th March 2008 to 12th March 2008 by Antop Hill Police Station, Unit-IV, Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not even produced before the Magistrate and was allowed to go home after 12th March 2008. . It is further the case of the petitioner that the Police Officers of the said Police Station are calling him, requiring him to be in the Police Station time and again, as and when they like do so, on the pretext of investigation or interrogation unnecessarily and thus keep on harassing him. 2. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the ((-2-)) PSI of the said Police Station wherein it is stated that the petitioner was arrested in the year 2001 in connection with an offence under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and was thereafter tried. However, it is admitted that the petitioner was acquitted on 27th April 2006. . It is further stated that the petitioner was also involved in another case for an offence punishable under sections 324, 323, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and that the petitioner was absconding initially for 27 days, but was thereafter arrested. It is conceded that the petitioner also has been granted bail and that accordingly, till today, he is on bail. . It is further stated in this affidavit that the officers of the said Police Station had called the petitioner on 10th March 2008 in connection with an enquiry in respect of a case registered at another Police Station and that after making enquiries as also after recording his statement, the petitioner was allowed to go as the officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not involved in that case. It is further claimed that accordingly entries are even made in the station diary dated 10th March ((-3-)) 2008. . It is further claimed that chapter proceedings are pending against the petitioner. The other allegations made in the petition are denied. 3. The respondents were not able to show us any notice having served on the petitioner for appearance in the Police Station for being questioned; and as a matter of fact, it is clearly conceded that whenever the Police in the State of Maharashtra intend to examine any person as a witness or as a suspect, the Police Station does not issue any notice in writing as a matter of practice, but only a word is sent or a constable is sent to call the person to the Police Station. 4. It is unfortunate if this practice is going on even after 125 years of Code of Criminal Procedure being in force, which does not give a power to any Police Officer to call anybody to the Police Station without informing him in writing that he is required in the Police Station unless such person is to be arrested in a case disclosing commission of a cognisible ((-4-)) offence. 5. When the provisions of law particularly Section 160 was brought to the notice of learned APP on an earlier occasion, he fairly conceded that the practice of calling people to the Police Station by word or by sending constable was not permissible and the Police Commissioner would issue a circular in this regard. A Circular has been produced before us which was issued on 16th August 2008. Though it is too late to issue such a circular, but it is never too late to learn. This circular directs all the Police Officers that when they need person to be examined as a witness or as a suspect, they shall send a notice in writing to the said person. The Circular further states that if the directions are not complied with, the officers concerned would be dealt with in accordance with law and Court may also take an inference of illegally detaining the person who was not called by a written notice. Learned APP also stated that the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State has also issued a similar circular on the same day. 6. We hope and trust that this circular shall ((-5-)) also be implemented and the higher-ups of the Police will see to it that this circular is followed in letter and spirit, except in those cases where a person is to be arrested in a cognisible offence. 7. Though the respondents in the present case submits that the petitioner was never arrested but was only called to the Police Station and was allowed to go back home after interrogation, yet, we are not able to believe such a story. It would have been a conclusive had the notice of appearance in writing been given to the petitioner but no such notice was given. The APP contends that a diary was maintained in which time of arrival of the petitioner in Police Station and time of departure of petitioner was recorded. In the absence of notice in writing, the significance of this diary looses its significance and credibility. We are told at the bar that the practice of calling people at Police Station is an age old practice in Maharashtra State, we take a lenient views and refrain ourselves from taking any action against the officers concerned. ((-6-)) 8. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.)