SURYAKANT K KAVLEKAR Vs. STATE THROUGH CBI ACB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TAKES exception to an Order/Letter issued by the Trial Court, calling for a Report from the Probation Officer in three Criminal cases, namely No.234/2003/C, 240/2003/C and 246/2003/C pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa.

(2.) IT is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the institution of the cases, but suffice to state that the Applicant is being prosecuted in the aforesaid three cases for offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is not disputed before me by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the charge has not been framed in the present case. In such situation, the applicant was therefore completely taken by surprise when he received a note from the Probation Officer dated 16.09.2003 directing the Applicant to meet the Probation Officer on 29th September, 2003 at 11.30 a.m. in the Office of the Directorate of Women and Child Development, Panaji, Goa and requested him to bring certain documents along with him. The applicant thereafter applied for certified copy of the purported Order passed by the learned Trial Court calling for the Report from the Probation Officer. In the meanwhile, it appears that by letter dated 15th October, 2003 the Probation Officer informed the Trial Court that the Applicant/Accused was not cooperating in the inquiry conducted by the Probation Officer. Another communication dated 4th November, 2003 was also addressed by the Probation Officer to the Trial Court, reiterating the same grievance. The learned Trial Court therefore, by an Order passed on the said letter on 18th November, 2003 directed the accused to cooperate with the Probation Officer in the submission of the Report.

(3.) MR. Vaz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has very fairly stated that the stage at which the Trial Court has called for the Report from the Probation Officer is extremely premature and such an order cannot be sustained.