SHAIKH ABDUL NAEEM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letterpetition is received through jail. By this petition, the order passed by the Special Judge dated 18.9.2010 below Exhibit 446 in Special M.C.O.C. Case No.16/2006 has been challenged. By the said application the petitioneraccused No.18 made grievance to the trial Court that he was unjustly compelled to remove his foot wear outside the court hall. The Special Judge, however, rejected the application on the reasoning that it was the outlook of the security guards outside the court hall to impose restrictions on persons and the accused entering in the court hall. It has further observed that if the Security Guards directs the accused not to enter the court hall wearing his foot wear then it is for the accused to abide by the said instructions.

(2.) In the petition, it is alleged that a practice has developed to direct all the accused persons to remove their footwear before entering the court rooms, appearing in Special Courts under MCOC, TADA and POTA. This practice is being followed presumably as a result of some incident of hurling of foot wear towards the judge which had happened in March, 2010.

(3.) Reliance is also placed on Police Manual, 1999, in particular, Clause 430 (4) occurring in Part 12 of the Manual. The same reads thus: