C. RAMESH Vs. N. DILIP KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel who represents the complainant -Petitioner, the learned Counsel who represents the Respondents -officers and the learned Counsel who represents the CBI.

(2.) IT is unnecessary for us to recount in an elaborate manner the facts that have given rise to this proceedings beyond stating that the complainant who is a businessman and a resident of Bangalore has raised a serious grievance in this petition which is to the effect that on 5.11.2000 which happened to be a Sunday that he had gone to the playground at 18th Cross, Malleswaram to participate in a cricket match and that all of a sudden that he was forcibly caught hold of and taken to the CBI office. He states that the officers informed him that there was a case which was under investigation by the CBI at Mumbai in relation to a bank fraud and that one Venkatesh Prasad @ Ramesh was the accused in that case. The CBI had on 1.9.2000 published the photograph of the accused in the Deccan Herald and the officers informed the complainant that in their opinion he resembled the accused whose photograph had been published and that was the reason why he had been brought to the office. According to the complainant all his efforts to establish his identity, his credentials etc., fell on deaf ears. His case is that the officers simply refused to listen to him or to behave reasonably and he also alleges that among other things he had pointed out that his wife Smt. S.V. Ramamani is a Software Engineer with IBM which is a reputed Multi National Company, even requested the officers to contact her and to cross check with regard to his identity which again they refused to do. The petition contains an elaborate set of recitals whereby according to the complainant the officers were coercing him to admit that he was the wanted accused. Thereafter according to him they informed Sri. S.V. Shashidhar, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, Bangalore, who is a relative of his and that this was at about 5 p.m. He states that the Deputy Superintendent of Police -Shashidhar along with his wife and father came to the CBI office but even these person were not permitted to see the complainant except to the limited extent that he was ushered into the Chamber of Sri Guruprasad where the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shashidhar identified him and told the officers that he was not the accused whom they were after, but even this was not accepted by the CBI Officers. According to him all the efforts made by the complainant's family members to convince the Officers of the identity and the bonafides of the complainant fell on deaf ears. He also states that at about 6 p.m. Sri V. Ramasharma, a Former CBI Public Prosecutor and a retired Legal Advisor of the CBI alongwith Sri Mumtaz Ahmed, Advocate, who is a retired Superintendent of Police also came to the CBI office, but the complainant alleges that the three officers who are incharge of the case just refused to either listen to them or to release the complainant. Two complaints were forwarded to the National Human Rights Commission at New Delhi and to the CBI Headquarters and the complainant states that after having spent 12 hours and 45 minutes in the custody of the CBI Officers that he was finally allowed to go at about 9.45 p.m. that night after giving an undertaking that he would appear when required. The complainant has contended that this is a very serious case wherein the entire administration of justice machinery has been virtually perverted by the manner in which three officers of the CBI have behaved and being seriously aggrieved by the incident the present petition was filed.

(3.) SUBSEQUENT to this, the Learned Senior Counsel who represents the CBI appeared before us and he filed the detailed affidavit of the Joint Director of CBI Southern zone wherein, the officers pointed out that the three officers had picked up the complainant under the bonafide impression that he was the person wanted in the Bombay case, but that after carrying out the requisite verifications as soon as they came to know that he was not the person that he had been released. However, the Joint Director has expressed his regret for what has happened not only to the Court but more importantly to the complainant who is the citizen of this country, and it has been pointed out that the incident in question was an unfortunate one and the request to the Court was that having regard to the fact that the institution had accepted the mistake in good grace that the Court should be magnanimous enough to accept the apology and close the proceedings. The three officers have also filed individual affidavits more or less along similar lines though we need to point out that we are not very happy with the wordings of the affidavits in question which could certainly have been more decorous. After hearing the Learned Counsel we were satisfied that the officers who are the contemnors before us have expressed their regret to the aggrieved party and to the Court and we have also taken note of the fact that in deference to the suggestion from the Court that they should make amends for whatever damage had occurred to the complainant as a result of the incident that took place on 5.11.2000 that they have also made amends as suggested by us. We have taken note of the fact that the contemnors have tendered an unconditional apology and in keeping with the well settled principles of law that a Court would normally not adopt either a harsh or vindictive approach but rather that the Court would always reciprocate an apology with magnanimous gesture, we have decided that it is unnecessary to proceed with this contempt case and that the proceedings may be dropped. We need to however record the submission canvassed on behalf of the complainant's Learned Counsel wherein he did allude to the fact that instances of bad behaviour on the part of the Law Enforcement Officers are to some extent on the increase and his submission was that when serious incidents of this type do take place that it is very necessary for the Courts to sound a stern note of caution for the purpose of making it very certain to the authorities concerned that instances of discourtesy, bad behaviour, rudeness or any other form of conduct that would not pass the test of scrutiny by a Court will not be tolerated under any circumstances. The submission canvassed on behalf of the complainant was that this is a case in which the Court must issue a stern admonition to the officers concerned because it will be necessary that other like minded persons should not misbehave while dealing with the members of the public. We see some justification in this grievance that has been projected on behalf of the complainant because the Learned Counsel's submission was that even assuming that his client had been picked up in the first instance in good faith because his photographs resembled to that of the accused; that there is absolutely no justification for what transpired in the remaining 12 hours when the officers simply refused to verify the credentials which they could have easily done in Bangalore itself. He points out that they are senior police officers and that it would not have taken them much time to independently verify, which they could easily have done from the various sources including the family members, Advocates, etc., who had come on the scene. That having been not done, it is an instance of extreme high handedness and arrogance. We have taken note of all these submissions that have been canvassed and we do need to indicate that this Court is not at all happy with what happened on 5.11.2000. But for the unconditional apology and the officers having made amends, we would have most certainly made an example of them.