1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal W.P.No. 501/2010 Mohan Zittuji Lilhare vs. The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya Mumbai and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mrs. S.S.Wandile, APP for the Respondents. Mr. A.S.Kilor, Advocate for Dr. Chhering Dorje, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone I, Mumbai. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & P.B.VARALE, JJ DATE : 17.3.2011 The petitioner has preferred this petition through Jail. The grievance of the petitioner is that his prayer for grant of furlough came to be rejected on account of adverse police report. According to the petitioner, in adverse police report it is falsely stated that the surety proposed by the petitioner is involved in two criminal cases. The case of the petitioner is that adverse report was malafidely given so that the petitioner would not be released on furlough. In view of the averments made by the petitioner, this court directed that inquiry be conducted and report be submitted to this court. 2. Pursuant to the directions of this court, inquiry 2` was conducted and report came to be submitted. The report shows that incorrect crime number has been mentioned in the police report. The proposed surety of the petitioner i.e. Prabhakar Zittuji Lilhare is the brother of the petitioner. As per the police record, two offences are registered against Prabhakar Zittuji Lilhare. They are Crime No. 91/87 under sections 324, 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Crime No. 46/94 under section 66(1)(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act of Police Station, Shegaon. However, inadvertently crime number of second case was wrongly mentioned in the report, hence, the sections were also wrongly stated. 3. In relation to the application for furlough, the petitioner was informed to furnish a fresh surety. However, the second surety furnished by the petitioner also had two cases against him. Hence, his application for furlough was not granted at that stage. 4. The petitioner has prayed for compensation as according to him, false adverse police report was sent by the police due to which he was denied furlough. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is noticed that after the application for furlough was received by the Jail Authorities, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nagpur had called for the police report from the Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur. The Superintendent of Police, 3` Chandrapur directed the Police Station Officer, Shegaon to submit report on the issue of furlough leave application of the petitioner. The Shegaon Police Station sent police report dated 11.11.2009 to the Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur. As per the police record, it was found that surety was involved in Crime Nos. 91/87 and 46/94 as mentioned above. 5. After receipt of the relevant case papers from the Police Station, Shegaon, the then Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur directed the concerned police personnel API Tijare LCB Office of the Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur for preparation of police report for consideration of furlough leave of the petitioner. API Tijare directed Ku. Sapana Lady Constable to type the said report on computer. She typed the said report. Thereafter, API Tijare signed and put it before the then Superintendent of Police who also signed the said report. In the report instead of Crime Number under the Prohibition Act, it was stated that the surety was involved in Crime No. 53/94 i.e. the case in which the petitioner is involved. This inadvertent mistake occurred as the petitioner Mohan Zittuji Lilhare is the brother of the proposed surety Prabhakar Zittuji Lilhare, therefore, the father's name and surname were the same in both cases, hence accidentally, the typist typed the crime number in which the petitioner is involved in the report relating to the surety. It is pertinent to note 4` that at the end of the report it is recommended that the petitioner be released on furlough leave which clearly indicates that there was no objection from the police to grant furlough to the petitioner. As the report was in fact a favourable report it cannot be said that the petitioner suffered in any manner on account of this report. It may also be stated that thereafter the petitioner came to be granted furlough on the same application on 28.8.2010 and he came to be released on furlough on 15.9.2010. 6. From the above facts, it is seen that there were no mala fides on the part of any person in issuing said report. The said report was not issued with any intention that petitioner should not be released on furlough. It appears that typing mistake occurred due to inadvertence. We accept the apology tendered by the concerned officer for this inadvertent mistake. 7. In view of the above facts, no case is made out for grant of compensation. Hence, the petition is rejected. 8. Office to communicate the order to the petitioner who is in Nagpur Central Prison. JUDGE JUDGE patle 5`