Bombay High Court orders police officer who violated the order

The Ordinance, issued by a chamber of judges Ravindra V Ghuge and BU Debadwar, draw up an indicative list of naked acts that must be purchased by the Officer.

“We are of the opinion that the Station House officer should purchase the latest nude acts on criminal laws like Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence Law, Listed Castes and Law on Criminal Laws. Listed Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989, Protection of Child Victims of Sexual Offenses Act 2012 (POCSO), Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 (POTA), Control Act 1999 Maharashtra Organized Crime (MCOCA), Maharashtra’s Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Smugglers and Drug Addicts / Dangerous People and Video Pirate Act 1981 (MPDA), Protecting Women from Violence Act 2005 domestic (DV law), etc., for the rural police station in Vasmatnagar.

The order was issued after the station agent failed to answer some questions posed by the court in January. For his failure, the court issued an order in March summoning the officer to court and ordering him to pay Rs 10,000 from his salary.

After the prosecution informed the court that the fax machine at the Vasmatnagar station was not working and that it was unaware of the questions referred to the court in January, the court decided to recall its order ordering the filing of Rs 10,000 and instead urged the Officer to buy the nude acts.

In court, the officer offered to donate 2,500 rupees to the bar library of the High Court in Aurangabad. However, the court ruled that the officer should buy nude acts for the police station.

“After purchasing such books, he would forward the copy of the purchase receipt to the learned prosecutor, who would submit a compliance report to this Court”, the court ordered.

Notably, the repealed Terrorism Prevention Law also finds a reference in the High Court’s Tentative List of Naked Acts for Vasmatnagar Station.

The Court had before it a request filed by a teacher, a Gopinath Galande, who asked for directives against the leadership of a group of schools. The group reportedly stopped his salary when he refused to pay a gratuity for the continuation of his services. Her counsel informed the court that Galande had filed two complaints, one in 2013 and the other in 2017. The 2017 complaint alleged that a female teacher was employed in two principal schools at the same time.

While the 2013 complaint was dismissed by the police after they found no basis for it, a first information report (FIR) was filed against the management in the 2017 complaint for having the same teacher perceiving the salary of two schools.

The Court had requested the agent’s response to the status of the 2013 complaint.

On the facts of the case, the Court said,

“We are of the opinion that such questions should not be brought before this Court in the context of a criminal application since the request for gratuity for the pursuit of employment may be considered by the Department of Education and if the grievance is not corrected, he can go to this court on the civil side. “

Stressing that the trial in the 2017 case had resulted in a case in the court of first instance and that the 2013 complaint which was not part of this Brief Motion was dismissed, the Court dismissed the motion.

CASE: Gopinath Galande v. Maharashtra State

ADVICE: Lawyer KP Rodge, Lawyer Rode Pratap G. for petitioner, APP SJ Salgaré for respondents