1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No. 219/2006 Dnyaneshwar S/o Sahdeorao Kadu, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Police Inspector, Police Station, Mangrulpir, R/o Mangrulpir, Distt. Washim. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra through Police Station, Washim Respondent ... Mr. V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. T.A. Mirza, APP for the respondent. … CORAM: A.P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 25/1/2010. 1] Heard Mr. V.M. Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mirza, learned APP for the respondent. 2] The applicant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 3/7/2006 passed by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Summary Criminal Case No.771/2006 convicting the applicant for offence of interruption in judicial proceedings in STC No.91/2005 (State vs Ashok and others) purporting to be under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- and in default to undergo S.I. till rising of the Court. 3] In S.T.C. No.91/2005 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim had issued summons in respect of several witnesses returnable on 26.6.2006. The applicant at the 2 relevant time was in charge of Mangrulpir Police Station. He did not get the summonses served and without signing the report returned the summonses. Learned Additional Sessions Judge issued show cause notice dated 1.7.2006 calling upon the applicant to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the applicant under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant showed cause vide reply dated 3.7.2006 stating therein that on 23.6.2006 there was law and order problem at Manora and he was directed along with other ten officials to look after law and order problem. He was on said duty at Manora 23.6.2006, 24.6.2006 and 25.6.2006 along with the other officials including higher police officers. He, therefore, directed constable Tulshiram Patil to serve summonses. However, he did not serve the same and therefore, he had issued show cause notice to said Tulshiram Patil. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was not satisfied with the explanation and accordingly convicted the applicant under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4] At the outset, it is to be noted that in the show cause notice issued under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Additional Sessions Judge has not mentioned the Section under which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the applicant. Under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Judge is entitled to proceed to hold summary inquiry, if any office is committed under Sections 175, 178, 179, 180 or 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge did not mention offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant. In any case, having regard to the explanation given by the applicant, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case in which the applicant could not have been held liable for any offence mentioned under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The fact remains that the applicant claimed that he was on duty on 23.6.2006, 24.6.2006 and 25.6.2006 and there was law and order problem. Therefore, although there was lapse on the part of the applicant, it cannot be said that he had committed offence and there 3 was any intention on his part to commit any offence for which he could have convicted. Moreover, as stated above, learned Judge has convicted the applicant for the offence under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is a procedural section. 5] In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order dated 3/7/2006 passed under Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim is quashed and set aside and the conviction of the applicant is also quashed. The fine, if any paid by the applicant be returned to the applicant. 6] Revision application stands disposed of. JUDGE Ambulkar.