DEELIP BHIKAJI SONAWANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is one more example of abuse of powers by the authorities. In this case it is the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who was appointed as Executive Magistrate by the Government of Maharashtra, who has by his absolutely illegal and unwarranted order put the citizen, who is a Science Graduate and Diploma Holder in Civil Engineering, behind the bars. The petition is filed in the following circumstances.

(2.) IN Nasik City on Gangapur Road there is a land bearing Survey No. 684 which the owner wanted to develop and, therefore, he had given power of attorney to one Chandrakant Trimbak Rajebahaddar and the said power of attorney holder seems to have assigned the work of development to the petitioner. In the said property there were slums and, therefore, there was dispute between the occupiers of the land and the developer. In the month of January 1994 the occupants of the land had filed complaints which are registered as N. Cs. under sections 143, 147 and 506 of I. P. C. and one C. R. under section 511 of I. P. C. with Sarkarwada Police Station. The respondent No. 2 had started chapter proceedings bearing C. C. No. 43 of 1994 against the petitioner and others under section 107 of Cri. P. C. In that chapter proceedings initially show cause notice was issued under section 111 of Cri. P. C. on 27-1-1994. The petitioner had executed a bond in the sum of Rs. 3000/- in the said chapter proceedings. It seems that in the month of April 1994 the occupiers in the land again lodged a complaint against the petitioner and others. Pursuant to the said complaint the respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice dated 21-4-1994 under section 107 of Cri. P. C. in which it was mentioned that on the basis of the earlier show cause notice issued in the month of January 1994 the petitioner had executed a bond in the sum of Rs. 3000/- on 28-1-1994. The said bond was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was in breach of the said bond and, therefore, he was asked to furnish fresh bond with two sureties, one of such sureties should be a Government servant who should not be Class IV employee and another surety should be a respectable businessman. It is alleged that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to arrange for those sureties the petitioner was taken in custody. He was detained in custody for a period of five days. He was released from jail on 25-4-1994. Thereafter the petitioner had challenged the chapter proceedings in the Sessions Court by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 224 of 1994 and the Sessions Court by order dated 16th June, 1995 quashed the said chapter proceedings and set aside the interim security bonds which were taken and forfeited by the respondent No. 2.

(3.) IN the mean time the petitioner filed a private complaint in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Nasik bearing Criminal Case No. 322 of 1994 for offence under section 342 of I. P. C. for his wrongful and illegal confinement by the respondent No. 2. The said complaint was dismissed under section 203 of Cri. P. C. by the learned J. M. F. C. , Nasik on the ground of want of sanction under section 197 of Cri. P. C. But the said order was challenged by the petitioner in the Sessions Court by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 233 of 1994. The Sessions Court, though was of the view that on the face of it the petitioner appears to have been put under wrongful confinement, dismissed the revision application on the ground that the respondent No. 2 being a public servant or a Magistrate, the sanction was required under section 197 of Cri. P. C. in the absence of which the criminal complaint could not be entertained by the trial Court.