RUBEN FRANCO Vs. STATE OF OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri P. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondents.

(2.) Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents waives service. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel.

(3.) Briefly it was the case of the petitioner that the notice dated 6/01/2017 under Sec. 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short) was issued against him by the respondent no.3 which was politically motivated in order to lower his self esteem, respect and dignity in the society. He had been issued the said notice and as he had expressed his willingness to oppose the ruling MLA who was contesting the present Assembly Elections at one meeting called by him. The petitioner had also questioned the sincerity and honesty of the ruling MLA and the development done in the Constituency resulting in the notice under Sec. 111 of the Code issued to him at the behest of the ruling MLA which was malafide and politically motivated. The said notice had been printed on a proforma without recording the reasons, which clearly showed a non-application of the judicial mind. The use of the printed/cyclostyled proforma with some insertions here and there rendered the impugned notice a clear farce. Besides, it contained vague apprehensions and allegations apart from preconceived notions. Moreover, he had been aggrieved by the non-service of the order and the impugned notice under Sec. 111 of the Code without following the mandate of law as contemplated therein rendering the notice under Sec. 111 of the Code vitiated provoking him to file the petition.