STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by acquittal of the respondent for offence punishable under section 145 (2) (b) of the Bombay Police Act, in a criminal case (SCC No. 293/1993), the State has come up in appeal.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the respondent was attached to Pathardi Police Station as a Police Constable. He remained absent from duty from 08-12-1991 uptil 18-06-1993. He had not obtained prior permission of the superior police officer. His continuous absentia from the duty was unauthorized. Therefore, a report was filed against him for offence punishable under section 145 (2) of the Bombay Police Act, by the Police Sub Inspector, Pathardi. The respondent was tried for said offence. The prosecution examined in all seven (7) witnesses in support of its case. The learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) held that the absence of the respondent was known to the police officers because the roll call was taken by the witnesses. The absence of the respondent was marked at the roll call. Still, however, it could not be said that the respondent withdrew himself from the assigned duty. Therefore, the learned Magistrate came to conclusion that the offence is not brought home to the respondent. Hence, learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent.

(3.) Heard learned APP for the appellant/State and learned advocate for the respondent.