MAHESH ATMARAM VASWANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has approached this Court to quash the summons issued to him by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay dated 2nd August 1995 in Crime No.35 of 1994. THE Summons were issued to the Petitioner under Sections 406, 419, 420 r/w 182 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) BASED on information given by Shri Ananda Bapu Chavan, first information report was lodged with the General Branch, Crime Branch, C. I. D. , on 17th June 1994. The Petitioner is shown as the accused in the said first information report. It is alleged in the first information report that the Petitioner by misusing telephone facility against the spirit of implied contract, cheated by impersonation and causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 5,040/- to Government on the count of I. S. D. telephone bill by giving false information to public servant Telephone Operator to induce him which he would not have done otherwise. Hence the Complaint under Sections 406, 419 and 420 r. w. 182 of the Indian Penal Code. Statements have been recorded of Shri Ananda Bapu Chavan. In the said statement it is disclosed that there is a Police Press Room which functions from 7.00 a. m. to 6.00 p. m. and there are two telephones installed for the use of Press Reporters. One telephone bearing No.2620333 is direct and the other is Extension - 488 to the Police Exchange Number 2620111. In this statement Shri Chavan has stated that on 10th June 1994 he reported for duty at Press Room, at around that time the Petitioner, Crime Reporter, who had earlier worked for Marathi daily Newspaper "samna", came there and after reading the Crime Bulletin went to use phone. This according to him is the normal practice of the reporters. He found the Petitioner talking over the phone for over an hour during which time he either dialed the number or answered the phones himself whenever the phone rang. The Petitioner according to him left the Press Room around 10.45 a. m. At about 8.30 a. m. Surendra Modi of Gujarati newspaper "janma Bhoomi" and "pravasi" also came there. After the Petitioner had left there were some calls from the Telephone Exchange on Telephone No.2620332. The Operator enquired whether Mustafa is there and whether the call to U. S. A. be cancelled, at which point of time he informed the Operator at the Exchange that no such call had been booked. Similarly an enquiry and reply was given for the Dubai call. Another reporter Mr. Modi also attended one such call. In his supplementary statement recorded on 18th June 1994, he has stated that API Poman of Police Control Room came to the Press Room and he made a phone calls to Extension No.488 as at that time the Petitioner was talking on the direct telephone.

(3.) SHRI Gursahani appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, contends that the First Information Report discloses no offence and even from the statements recorded it cannot be said that any offence as alleged could be framed. It is his contention that admittedly there is a phone available in the Police Press Room which could be used by Journalists and the Petitioner as a Journalist also had a right to use the same. Even if at the highest it is assumed that the Petitioner was the same person who had booked the phone calls under the alias Mustafa, that by itself would be no offence as a Press Reporter to get information could use any alias. At the highest he pointed out that though he is not liable and without prejudice to his rights and contentions, he is willing to reimburse the Department for the telephone calls that were made on that day and which telephone calls totally amount to Rs. 5,040/ -. SHRI Gursahani has also drawn my attention to the Order passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.2110 of 1994 dated 6th September 1994. The Learned Single Judge was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner and set aside the Order dated 26th March 1994 of the Additional Sessions Judge which has rejected the Petitioner's application for bail. Learned Additional Police Prosecutor contended that if one peruses the complaint and the statements recorded, it cannot be said that this is the case that there is no material based on which the charge can be framed against the Patitioner and consequently this Criminal Application No.246 of 1996 should be rejected.