CRIMINAL APPEAL 447 of 2010 on 31 December 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPURCriminal Appeal No. 447 of 2010[Swapnil Mahadeo Somkuar Vs. The State of Mah.]With [Umesh @ Chootu Balkrushna Lokhande & three others Vs. TheState of Mah. ]

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's ordersor directions and Registrar's orders.

Mr. Sambre, Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

----

CORAM: A.B. CHAUDHARI AND

Z.A. HAQ, JJ.

DATE : 13th December, 2013.

At 3.00 p.m., today, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Sambre has later on appeared and submitted that some significant features in relation to the prosecution of the Police Officer — Mr. Manoj Tulshiram Kedare, API, were not pointed out to this Court when the order in these appeals was dictated in the morning session, because the said Police Officer had not properly instructed learned APP Mr. T.A.

Mirza who conducted the proceedings of these appeals for the respondent-State.

According to learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Sambre, Mr. Nanoj T. Kedare, API, joined the Police force on 31st December, 2005, and after undergoing training, he was, for the first time posted in Pratapnagar Police Station, Nagpur.

He was on probation from 2006 to 2008. The investigation of the serious crime of murder was handed over to him and that was his first encounter with the investigation in a serious offence of murder. Then, there was a commotion, riotous situation, Morchas etc., in the area and the clash between the two communities. In this situation, Mr. Kedare being totally a new police officer and having no experience as an Investigating Officer in a serious case of murder, coupled with the background of clash between two communities and offence of murder, police officer and having no experience as an Investigating Officer in a serious case of murder, coupled with the background of clash between two communities and offence of murder, he was inexperienced to handle the situation.

That is why, according to Mr. Sambre, the deficiencies recorded by this Court in its order passed in the morning had occurred. According to Mr. Sambre, those were not deliberate and he had no personal interest, whatsoever, on either side, and apart from that, he is of the young age of thirty-five years. The said Police Officer is ready to face a Departmental Enquiry, and would abide by the disciplinary action according to law.

We have carefully considered the

submissions made by Mr. Sambre, the learned Public Prosecutor.

We consider it appropriate in the above

factual background that the concerned Police Officer Mr. Manoj Kedare had his fist encounter with the investigation of a serious crime of murder after he joined the police force and that too after his first posting. His explanation was not available when we dictated the order in the open Court. Now, the explanation offered by him is found to be satisfactory and we treat the submissions made by Mr. Sambre to be true and accept the same. We, therefore, do not order filing of a criminal complaint against him. Consequently, we delete the directions 1,2,3 and 4 in the operative part of the order dictated in the first session. We, however, maintain the direction No.5 in the said order which reads thus:-

(5) The Director General of Police,

Mumbai is directed to proceed against the Police Inspector Mr. M.T. Kedare by holding a departmental enquiry against him and after serving the charge-sheet complete the same within a period of ten months from today and shall report compliance to this Court after completion of enquiry.

JudgeJudge

|Hedau|