Mumbai: The sessions court has raised a need for ‘bold orders’ against the
high-ranking officers, avoiding to do their duties. Such an act can
constitute criminal offence, the session judge said while directing
the magistrate court to proceed against senior police officials
including former director general of police of the state, Satish
Mathur and other senior officers.
Investigation Lapses Highlighted
The additional sessions judge Mujibodeen S. Shaikh said, the
anti-corruption laws have been enacted. However, acts of commission
and omission, lack of expertise and delay in investigation are the
vital reasons.
Revision Petition Hearing
The court was hearing the revision petition filed by businessman and
activist Kamlakar Shenoy against the order of dismissal of his
complaint filed before the metropolitan magistrate court, Dadar. He
had approached the magistrate court in 2017 against Mathur, and other
officers namely Keshav Patil, then additional commissioner of police,
Ranjan Bhogle then additional Superintendent of Police Ranjan Bhogle
for not registering his complaint.
Court Allows Petition
The court has allowed the petition filed by Shenoy and ordered
magistrate to act against the officers under 166 A (public servant
disobeying directions under law), 217 (public servant, knowingly
disobeys any direction of the law to save a person) and 218 (public
servant farming incorrect records or writing with intent to save
person) read with 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegations Against Officials
Shenoy had moved a complaint before the magistrate court against these
police officers for failure to act against the officers of Maharashtra
Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and Officers of Mumbai Buildings Repairs and Reconstructions Board. The activists had claimed that he had sought to book the government officials for not taking
action against the developers who had not surrendered surplus area
admeasuring 1,37,322.53 sq.mt, which he alleged, caused a loss of Rs
14,000 crores to the government.
Police Inaction Alleged
Shenoy claimed that the police failed to register the case and
conducted an inquiry. When asked, he was told that a legal opinion has
been sought on the issue. Shenoy claimed that the act of the accused
for seeking opinion of the department where the proposed accused work
and conducting the discreet inquiry, is illegal.
Magistrate Complaint Dismissed
As the police failed to act against the officials of MHADA and
respective authorities, Shenoy had approached the magistrate court to
prosecute these senior police officials for their failure to lodge the
case. However, the magistrate court had dismissed his complaint, hence
he approached the sessions court.
Delay In FIR Registration
Shenoy argued that when the public servants abuse their position
causing loss to the government it amounts to a serious aspect. ‘The
report amounting to cognizable offence was given to the respondents
and they being police Officers and public servants should have
registered the First Information Report (FIR). However, the
respondents kept the complaint pending up to 25 months,” Shenoy
contended.
Inquiry Used As Cover
He argued that the respondents have consciously avoided to register
the FIR against the concerned Officials of MHADA, under the garb of
inquiry though the information discloses commission of cognizable
offences.
Defense Argument Presented
The defense lawyer for these senior officers contended that as against
the allegations, action had been initiated. It was argued that they
had sought permission to hold open inquiry against these officials but
the same was denied and discreet inquiry was initiated. It is claimed
that the offence cannot be registered directly against the public
servant without seeking permission from the competent authority or
State Government.
Court Observes Negligence
The court after hearing this noted that the officials had been making
inquiries for more than two years. On this the court said, “the act of
the respondents come under the omission to consider the prevailing
laws and another facet of negligent or dereliction of duty,”
Also Watch:
Failure To Act Promptly
“When there is ample evidence, that the MHADA Officials in collusion
with the developers caused wrongful loss to the government, then it
was the duty of respondents to register the FIR immediately and to
start the inquiry to find out the truth in the matter. However, the
respondents avoided their responsibility and duty and chose to take
the opinion from the Principal Secretary of the Housing Department,”
the court further noted.
Prima Facie Offence Made
The court further noted that, “After considering the entire fact and
circumstances, it becomes crystal clear that under the garb of
preliminary inquiry continues years together the respondents showed
utter disregard to the mandate of law and provisions and therefore,
prima facilely committed the offence.”
Strong Message To Officials
“In such set up circumstances time has come to pass the bold order to
teach the lesson to the public servant working on the higher positions
of Government, if they avoided their Official duty showing utter
disregard to the law of land then their act can constitute criminal
offence. So also, the time has come to give a strong message to the
Executive Officers/ Bureaucrats that their omission and inaction to
take proper action at appropriate time is causing serious issues
regarding the economy of the Country as well as economy of the State,”
the court said.
No One Above Law
“Now the time has also come to make it clear that no one is above the
law and law does not protect the white-collar persons who are using
their Office/designation to protect the Officers deeply involved in
wrongful gain for them and wrongful loss for the State,” the court
said.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
