SUDIP TAMANKAR SON OF NARAYAN TAMANKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Public Prosecutor waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) The petitioner (accused) is challenging the judgment and order dated 7/11/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application No.34/2016. By the impugned judgment, the learned Session Judge has affirmed the order of the learned Magistrate to the extent of directing framing of charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 353, 186 and 380 of I.P.C. ( wrongly mentioned as section 180 of I.P.C in the impugned judgment) The learned Sessions Judge has however set aside the order to the extent of directing the framing of charge under section 504 of I.P.C.

(3.) The petitioner claims to be an RTI activist and had sought certain information under the Right to Information Act. According to the complaint lodged by Mrs. Vasanti H. Pascodkar, the Under Secretary Law (Estt.), the petitioner on 15/10/2013, at about 11.30 a.m. went to the office of the Under Secretary Department of Law and Judiciary (Establishment) and had allegedly misbehaved with the office staff and had refused to accept the information supplied by the Assistant. It is also alleged that the petitioner uttered certain words in bad taste and snatched the papers from the government file and took the information forcibly. It was complained that the Assistant pleaded with the petitioner and tried to pacify him, however, the petitioner uttered certain filthy words in bad taste. It was on the complaint of the Under Secretary that an offence came to be registered at the Police Station, Porvorim and after investigation a charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Mapusa.