((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1580 OF 2008 Abdul Wahid Abdul Jabbar Ansari Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.Wahab Khan 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 was that he was kept in custody without any authority of law for four days from 5th May 2003 to 8th May 2003. On 8th May 2003 he was arrested in a case in which, later on, he was charged sheeted in connection of which he is facing the trial. He is at present in custody. 2. No formal reply has been filed in this case, however, it has been admitted on the basis of a report filed in POTA Special Case No.2/1993 that the petitioner in this case was interrogated from 6th May 2003 to 8th May 2003. He was called to the Police Station every day and after interrogation he was allowed to go ((-2-)) home. 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 offence. 5. When the provisions of law particularly Section 160 was brought to the notice of learned APP on an earlier occasion, he fairly ((-3-)) 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 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. ((-4-)) 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 of Police 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. Since the matter is of 2003 and the petitioner is now in custody, in accordance with due process of law and 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. 8. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ((-5-)) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.)