UTTAM MANULAL KALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Respondents waive service. By consent heard forthwith.

(2.) PETITIONER retired on 21st May, 1996 as Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) of Thane District. He has approached this Court in respect of show cause notice issued to him under section 250 (1) by the Designated Court, Pune in decided TADA Case No. 22 of 1993. TADA Case No. 22 of 1993 resulted in the acquittal of the accused therein. The petitioner is not the person based on whose complaint or information the accusation was made. The learned Public Prosecutor informs that the matter was taken upto the Apex Court, which has rejected the appeal preferred by the State Government. What is relevant, however, is paragraph 156 of the judgment. The TADA Court arrived at the conclusion that it would be just and proper and in the interest of justice to issue notices to such Police Officers in the case who were instrumental in obtaining and granting sanction under the Arms Act, and under the TADA Act against the accused persons. After this the Designated Court in para. 160 of the judgment came to the conclusion that most witnesses who were examined turned hostile. Others who supported the prosecution case supported it half heartedly and from their conduct, behaviour and other aspects, their evidence was not found worthwhile to be believed. The observations in para 160 and the subsequent act of issuing notice to Senior Officers of the Police Force once again demonstrates the failure of the legal system in protecting those who bona fidely discharge duties assigned to them by law. If such notices do not demoralise the police force 1 do not know what else can. In the instant case Senior Officers, many since retired who merely granted administrative approval have been issued show cause notices like the petitioner herein, who had no role in the investigation of the offence except in his administrative capacity and was not the complainant. Peace eludes them even in retirement.

(3.) THE question involved in this petition is the interpretation of section 250 of Cr. P. C. Section 250 (1) of Cr. P. C. reads as under: