1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No. 453 of 2008 [Harjitsingh Balwant Singh Kande Vs. PSO, PS. Panchpaoli, Nagpur & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.G. Karmarkar, Ad., for the petitioner. Mr. N.W. Sambre, Public Prosecutor for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 18th February, 2009. 1. At the outset, we record our satisfaction about steps taken by the respondent no.2 – Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, for revamping arrangement of receipt and dealing with the complaints, and distribution of work. We also appreciate that he has directed that no complaint addressed to him is dealt with without his knowledge and orders. 2. Now, we would proceed to deal with the case at hand. 3. We note with serious concern that observations contained in Paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the order passed by us on 20th January, 2009 have gone unexplained, at least those are not construed in a proper sense and spirit. 4. What appeared to us was, without any ambiguity, noted by us in said paragraph nos. 3 and 4. We felt it necessary, since we cannot be 2 driven to believe that an officer of the rank of Commissioner of Police would casually give a clean chit, in absence of any explanation thereto in the said affidavit, however, we were astonished. 5. We record with further concern that the subsequent affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, which is dated 12th February, 2009, does not explain this aspect, rather the respondent no.2 had no occasion to pay attention to apply mind to Para Nos. 3 and 4 of our order dated 20th January, 2009. 6. In view that no explanation has been given, prima facie may be that the respondent no.2 means what he has written therein, i.e., giving a clean chit to the Investigating Officer. 7. It may also be a case that the said observation has appeared in the affidavit due to inadvertence. In that event, the said statement should have been of a guarded observation and seeking liberty to give opinion after completing the enquiry or investigation, including the enquiry into the complaint-grievance made against Investigating Officer in the body of Writ Petition. 8. We, therefore, direct that an affidavit of clarification be filed. The clarification should necessarily accompany record, if any, which may be the foundation of the said statement, which could be in the form of enquiry/investigation conducted by the 3 respondent no.2 himself, or caused through any other officer. 9. In so far as the progress of investigation of subject-matter – case is concerned, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Nitin Sambre has informed the Court that due to sad demise of a family member of the Deputy Commissioner of Police – In-charge of investigation, no progress can be immediately reported. Considering this ground, we grant three weeks' time for necessary report. 10. We also grant three weeks' time for filing an affidavit of clarification as sought herein above. 11. Copy of this order be supplied to learned Public Prosecutor free of costs, to act upon. 12. Stand over to 18th March, 2009. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No. 453 of 2008 [Harjitsingh Balwant Singh Kande Vs. PSO, PS. Panchpaoli, Nagpur & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.G. Karmarkar, Ad., for the petitioner. Mr. N.W. Sambre, Public Prosecutor for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 18th February, 2009. 1. We appreciate the step taken by Director General of Police by issuing a Circular dated 5th July, 2008 [Annexure-R-7 to the affidavit of the respondent no.2]. 2. We, however, record our concern about the category marked in Para 3 Clause-A [II]. This category be dealt with as a category of cases of non-specific allegations. The words “frivolous and superfluous” appearing in the said category be treated as in abeyance. The Director General of Police would be free to examine this aspect, and to issue suitable modifications. No complaint can be regarded as frivolous or superfluous without enquiry. May be this aspect did not occur to the mind of Director General of Police. 3. We have noticed that though the 5 Director General of Police issued the Circular on 5th July, 2008, it was not acted upon, including in the office of respondent no.2. Hence we hope, expect and, therefore, direct the Director General of Police to:- [a] seek an undertaking from subordinate officers that the Circular dated 5th July, 2008 is complied with; [b] give due publicity to the said Circular, so that subjects of Criminal Law Justice system come to know about it, and [c] conduct Workshop or Training Sessions for the officers working in the offices of superior Police Officers for implementation of the said Circular. 4. We hope and expect that the response of Director General of Police as to steps to be taken for implementation, proper publicity etc., of Circular dated 5th July, 2008, noted in para no.4 above be filed within three weeks and report the compliance on or before 18th March, 2009. 5. Copy of this order be supplied to learned Public Prosecutor free of costs, to act upon. Judge Judge |Hedau| 6