1 mss CRPIL.16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRI PIL NO. 16 OF 2011 DATTATRAY BALKRISHNA SUMANT .. PETITIONER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Rahul S. Kadam for the petitioner Mr. P.A. Pol, PP. CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RAJESH G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 7/9/2011 P.C.: On 4/8/2011 we disposed of CRPIL No. 5 of 2011 after recording the statement made across the bar that the investigation of C.R. No. 427 of 2009 registered at Mohol Police Station will be carried out by an independent person namely the Deputy Superintendent of Police. We had expressed hope that the investigation will be carried out independently and will reach its logical end. The petition was directed to be placed on 15/2/2012 so that report of the departmental enquiry could be submitted to the court. 2 mss CRPIL.16 2. FIR No. 423 of 2009 was registered on 28/11/2009 at the Mohol Police Station on the complaint of PC Anjeer Jadhav. PC Jadhav had reported that on 22/8/2009 one truck illegally carrying 150 bags of wheat which was supposed to be sold through ration shop was seized by the residents of village Mohol. The truck was handed over to Mohol Taluka Police Station. Mr. Shisal the then Police Sub Inspector, who was on duty at the Mohol Taluka Police Station released the said truck on forged documents without making any enquiry about 150 bags of wheat. We had noted in our order dated 4/8/2011 that it is only after the petition was filed that respondents 1 and 2 i.e. PSI Mr. Shisal and PI Deshmukh, whose involvement was disclosed, were arrested. 3. The present PIL involves the same case. The petitioner claims to be a social worker. Objection was taken by Mr. Pol, learned Public Prosecutor to the maintainability of the petition. He stated that the petitioner is not a bonafide person. He was involved in CR No. 84 of 2000 and CR No. 118 of 2003 registered at Kurudwadi Police Station, District Solapur. It is an admitted position that in CR No. 84 of 2000 the petitioner was charged under Section 324 r/w 34 of the IPC and none of the respondents were involved therein. The petitioner has been acquitted in the said case. So far as CR No. 118 of 2003 is concerned the petitioner was charged under 3 mss CRPIL.16 Section 147,148,149,436,427,504 of IPC and under Sections 3(2)(3) of the Prevention of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Atrocities Act. In this case also the petitioner has been acquitted and the respondents were not involved therein. 4. We have seen the rules framed by this court i.e. The Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. Rule 5(e) thereof reads as under: “5(e) details regarding any civil, criminal or revenue litigation, involving the petitioner or any of the petitioners, which has or could have a legal nexus with the issue(s) involved in the Public Interest Litigation.” The petitioner is thus expected to disclose any civil, criminal or revenue litigation, having legal nexus with the issues involved in the PIL. The cases in which the petitioner was involved and subsequently acquitted cannot be said to have any nexus with the issues involved in this petition. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the preliminary objection raised by the State. It is rejected. 4 mss CRPIL.16 5. As we have already noted prosecution is initiated against PSI Shisal and PI Deshmukh. The petitioner’s contention is that apart from PSI Shisal and PI Deshmukh, respondents 5 and 6 namely Tahsildar and Nayab Tahsildar of Mohol Taluka, respondents 8 to 11 i.e. P.R. Patil, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Shri Govind Pawar Inspector of Police, Mohol Police Station, Sidharam Dhaigude, Police Naik and Abhijit Rawade, Police Constable are also involved in this case. Our attention is drawn to station diary entries made by PSI Shisal on 22/8/2009 and 23/8/2009, FIR dated 20/11/09, letter sent by the Tahsildar Mohol to Police Inspector Mohol Police Station dated 22/8/2009, Panchnama dated 22/8/2009 and certain other documents which are annexed to the petition. It is submitted that the Investigating Agency is protecting these persons. 6. In the affidavit filed by Mr. Dhondopant Swami, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Akluj Taluka, Maishiras, District Solapur, it is stated that the investigation is still going on. We have already noted that investigation has disclosed involvement of two police officers i.e. P.I. Mr. Shisal and PSI Mr. Deshmukh and they were arrested only after the petition was filed. Fortunately today the investigation is in the hands of Mr. Kadam, who is Dy. SP, Pandharpur Division. Admittedly he is from a different division. 5 mss CRPIL.16 7. Against the aforementioned background and because the offence alleged is serious, we feel that Mr. Kadam, Dy. SP will carry out the further investigation independently. He shall find out whether respondents 5,6, 8 to 11 are also involved in the instant crime. We, however, make it clear that nothing said by us in this order should be treated as opinion expressed by us that these respondents are really involved in this offence. It is for the investigating agency to decide whether they are involved. Mr. Kadam, Dy. SP shall conduct this investigation in coordination with Mr. Pradhan, the Superintendent of Police, Solapur and he shall submit monthly report of investigation to Mr. Pradhan, SP Solapur, who shall supervise the investigation. As stated in the affidavit of Mr. Swami, if any other persons involvement is disclosed the police shall take necessary steps. The status and designation of the persons involved should not come in the way of the Investigating Agency in carrying out independent investigation. 8. Petition is disposed of. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (RAJESH G. KETKAR, J.)