1 mss Cr.PIL+8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.8 OF 2010 Gangaben Bhania Halpati .. Petitioner V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Bhavesh Parmar i/by Ms.Sandhya A.Mailagir & Devmani Shukla, Jatin Sheth for the Petitioner. Mr. D.A. Nalawade for Respondent No.2. Mr. N. Bhujbal i/by Mr. Prakash Naik for Respondent Nos. 5 to 8. CORAM: SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 16th March, 2011. P.C.: We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the grievances of the petitioner contained in prayer clauses (b), (c), (e) and (f) are redressed, and the only prayer which has survived, is prayer clause (d). The basic grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s complaint dated 1.4.2010 has not been expeditiously investigated by respondents 1 to 4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 2 mss Cr.PIL+8 Atrocities) Act, 1989, which provides for ‘punishment for neglect of duties’. Section 4 reads as under: “Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, wilfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner also drew our attention to Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 provides that the Investigating Officer so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority basis within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police to the State Government. Counsel submitted that respondents 1 to 4 have purposely and with malafide intention overlooked the above provisions. He submitted that the complaint was registered as far back as on 1.4.2010, however, till date the Investigating Officer has not completed the investigation and therefore strict note needs to be taken of this dereliction of duties by the Investigating Officer. 3 mss Cr.PIL+8 4. Mr. Nalawade, learned counsel for respondent 2 disputed the above statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He stated that in this case the Investigating Officers have changed. He stated that the affidavits filed by them disclose that the 1st Investigating Officer who had taken over the investigation on 4.8.2010 has submitted the status report to the Superintendent of Police on 13.10.2010, and the present Investigating Officer who has taken over the investigation on 30.11.2010 has submitted the status report on 10.3.2011. Mr. Nalawade submitted that therefore there is sufficient compliance of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the Rules. 5. Affidavit is filed by Mr. Kapoor Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police of the Union Territory Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. He took over the investigation of this case on 30/11/2010. It is stated in the affidavit that on the basis of complaint of the complainant and as a part of investigation to establish the offence of forgery, the documents particularly the will and other documents were sent to the Dy. Chief Examiner, Hyderabad Questioned Documents Officer, Government of India vide letter dated 27.12.2010 and the said documents were returned with a reply dated 30.12.2010 stating that the Laboratory does not undertake the examination of thumb impressions and fingerprints. It is further stated that in view of the said reply the Investigating agency addressed a letter on 3.1.2011 to the 4 mss Cr.PIL+8 Assistant Director, Finger Print Bureau, F.S.L. Ahmedabad and sent it through a special messenger. Thereafter the office of Finger Print Bureau, Ahmedabad asked them to comply with certain requirements. After complying with them the Investigating Agency submitted the required information vide letter dated 17.2.2011. It is stated in the affidavit that thereafter a reminder was sent on 10.3.2011 through special messenger, and the Directorate has orally stated that it will take at-least one month to send the opinion. On the basis of this averment, Mr. Nalawade submitted that the report is awaited. According to him, report of the Finger Print Bureau, F.S.L.Ahmedabad is very crucial to the investigation, and upon receipt of the same the Investigating Agency will conclude the investigation. He stated that by 30th April, 2011 the investigation will be concluded. 6. Prima-facie, we are of the opinion that the investigation of this case is delayed. In any case, in view of the statement made by Mr. Nalawade that the investigation will be concluded by 30th April, 2011, we do not want to keep the petition pending. Let the Investigation Agency conclude the investigation by 30th April, 2011. 7. We are informed that the Finger Print Bureau, F.S.L. Ahmedabad has stated that it would take at-least one month to send the report. It is possible 5 mss Cr.PIL+8 that the Finger Print Bureau, F.S.L. Ahmedabad has a lot of work. However, in the circumstances of the case, we expect the Finger Print Bureau, F.S.L. Ahmedabad to submit its report expeditiously. No further order needs to be passed on this petition at this stage. We, therefore, dispose of the petition in the aforesaid terms. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. All contentions of both sides are kept open. It would be open to the petitioner to adopt any appropriate remedy which may be available to her in law, after the Investigating Agency concludes the investigation, if her grievance still subsists. . (R. G. KETKAR, J.) (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)