Bombay High Court
Smt. Vimladevi Tiwari vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 22 April, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)ALD(CRI)66, 1998BOMCR(CRI)~, 1998(3)MHLJ712
Author: T.K. Chandrashekhara Das
Bench: T.K. Chandrashekhara Das
ORDER A.V. Savant, J.
1. This petition by the mother of Jitendra Tiwari, since deceased, alleges illegal detention of the deceased by the third respondent - Special Executive Magistrate - and mother also claims damages from the respondents for the un-natural death of Jitendra Tiwari at the hands of the respondents. While admitting this petition on 27th March, 1998, we have referred to the facts in detail and passed a reasoned order for issuance of rule. In the circumstances, we think it unnecessary to repeat the said facts. The order dated 27th March, 1998 may therefore, be treated as part of this order.
2. Pursuant to the direction given by us while issuing rule on 27th March, 1998, further affidavits have been filed before us. The concerned Executive Magistrate namely respondent No. 3 Shri. A.S. Deshbhartar, Assistant Commissioner of Police has filed his affidavit dated 16th April, 1998. He has also produced affidavit of Police Head Constable Shri. R.B. More sworn on 10th April, 1998. We have heard Smt. Behere for the petitioner, Shri. R.B. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri P.M. Pradhan who is appointed as Special Counsel for respondent No. 3. In short, the grievance of the petitioner - mother of the deceased is about the illegal manner in which the orders under section 111 and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were passed resulting in the unauthorised detention of her son Jitendra Datta Tiwari since deceased. The petitioner's second grievance is about the unnatural circumstances in which her son Jitendra has died on 25th December, 1997.
3. As indicated in our earlier order, Jitendra was arrested at about 11.45 a.m. on 5th December, 1997 at Castle Mill area, Gokul Nagar falling in the jurisdiction of Naupada Police Station in Thane. On 6th December, 1997 itself head constable More attached to Naupada Police Station made a report on the basis of which an order under section 111 of the Code was passed by the third respondent. The time at which the report was made and the time at which the order was passed is not clear. Pursuant to the order passed under section 111 of the Code, Jitendra was produced before the third respondent on 6th December, 1997 itself, though the timing on this is also not clear. As required by section 112 of the Code, the order under section 111 was read over to him and it is alleged that the substance thereof was explained to him. He is alleged to have admitted that he was indulging in small thefts for his survival and immediately, an order has been passed on 6th December, 1997 itself calling upon said Jitendra Tiwari to furnish a bond for good behaviour in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- for a period of six months and since the matter was adjourned to 18th December, 1997, for final disposal, Jitendra Tiwari was ordered to be kept in the Magisterial custody till 18th December, 1997.
4. Pursuant to the order passed by us on 27th March, 1997, the original proceedings which were made available to us by the learned A.P.P. Shri Patil, were sealed and kept in the custody of Registrar of this Court. We have perused the same and the position emerging therefrom is as under.
5. In the show cause Notice/Order passed on 6th December, 1997, under section 111 of the Code, typed portion says that a report was submitted by Head Constable More that there was likelihood of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility or damage to the public property, details of which are supposed to be mentioned in the hand written portion in the latter part of the order under section 111. All that the hand written portion says is that Jitendra Tiwari was found moving in suspicious manner in Gokul Nagar - Castle Mill area on 5th December, 1997 at about 11.45 a.m. and was accosted by Naupada Police Station. Jitendra Tiwari was not having any regular avocation but was indulging in petty thefts which was his habit, and, therefore, there was danger to public property at the hands of Jitendra Tiwari. Relying upon these facts, Special Executive Magistrate issued an order calling upon Jitendra Tiwari to show cause as to why he should not execute a bond for good behaviour in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- with one surety for the period of six months. Statement of Jitendra Tiwari has been recorded in the question answer form. The typed questions and the hand written answers are as under :--
1. Notice has been read out to you and have you understood the same ? Yes.
2. Do you want to say anything in reply to the said notice or do you want to show cause ? No.
3. Do you want to say anything in the said enquiry regarding his detention ? No.
6. Assuming that proper procedure under section 111 was followed, when we come to the next stage of section 116, it is necessary for the Magistrate to proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary. Sub section (2) of section 116 provides that such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons cases. Sub-section (3) is important for our purpose and reads as under :
"(3) After the commencement, and before the completion, of the inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate, it he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under section 111 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded :
Provided that -
(a) no person against whom proceedings are not being taken under section 108, section 109, or section 110, shall be directed to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour;
(b) the conditions of such bond, whether as to the amount thereof or as to the provision of sureties or the number thereof or the pecuniary extent of their liability, shall not be more onerous than those specified in the order under section 111.
7. It is fairly admitted before us by both Mr. Patil for the State and Mr. Pradhan for the third respondent that there is no order passed under sub-section (3) of section 116 in the present case. If the learned Magistrate thought that immediate measures were necessary for prevention of even commission of any offence, he had to record the reasons in writing directing execution of a bond as an interim measure. He has further discretion of directing the person to be detained in custody. Unfortunately, those provisions of law has been honoured in their breach and, no order has been passed which indicates that immediate measures were necessary for passing the interim order of the nature contemplated by section 116(3).
8. In this behalf, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye and another v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and others . The Apex Court was discussing the scheme of the provision of Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In para 43 of the Judgment, at page 2500, the Apex Court observed that since the liberty of the person is involved and that the person is being proceeded against on information and suspicion, it is necessary to put a strict construction upon the powers of Magistrate. As far as passing an order under section 116(3) is concerned, the Apex Court observed that a definite finding is required that immediate steps are necessary. The order must be one which can be made into a final order unless something to the contrary is established. We find it appropriate to reproduce para 43 appearing at page 2500-01 as under :
"43. In our opinion the words of the section are quite clear. As said by Straight, J., in Empress v. Babua, 1883 l.L.R. 6 All. 132, the order under section 112 is on hearsay but the inquiry under section 117 is to ascertain the truth of the necessary information : Sub-section (1) contemplates an immediate inquiry into the truth of the information. It is pending the completion of the inquiry that an interim bond can be asked for if immediate measures measures are necessary, and in default it is necessary to put the person in custody. Therefore, as the liberty of a person in involved, and that person is being proceeded against on information and suspicion, it is necessary to put a strict construction upon the powers of Magistrate. The facts must be of definite character. In Nafar Chandra Pal v. Emperor there was only a petition and a report and these were not found sufficient material. In some of the cases before us no effort was made by the Magistrate to inquire into the truth of the allegation. The Magistrate adjourned the case from day to day and yet asked for an interim bond. This makes the proceedings entirely one sided. It cannot be described as an inquiry within an inquiry as has been said in some cases. Some inquiry has to be made before the bond can be ordered. We therefore, approve of those cases in which it has been laid down that some inquiry should be made before action is taken to ask for an interim bond on placing the person in custody in default. In an old case reported in A.D. Dunne v. Hem Chunder, 1869(12) Suth.W.R. Cr. 60 (FB) a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court went into the matter. The case arose before the present Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, there was no provision for an interim bond. But what Sir. Barness Peacock, C.J., said applies to the changed law also not only with regard to the ultimate order but also to the interim order for a bond. The section even as it is drafted today, is hedged in with proper safeguards and it would be moving too far away from the guarantee, of freedom, if the view were allowed to prevail that without any inquiry into the truth of the information sufficient to make out a prima facie case a person is to be put in jeopardy of detention. A definite finding is required that immediate steps are necessary. The order must be one which can be made into a final order unless something to the contrary is established. Therefore, it is not open to a Magistrate to adjourn the case and in the interval to send a person to jail if the fails to furnish a bond. If this were the law a bond could always be insisted upon before even the inquiry began and that is neither the sense of the law nor the wording or arrangement of the sections already noticed."
9. After observing as above, the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye's case (supra), made a distinction between the power of the Magistrate under Chapter VIII which is distinguished from the power of detention by executive action under Article 22 of the Constitution. In the facts of the case before the Apex Court, since the matter was adjourned repeatedly, without enquiry before remanding a person to custody, detention was held to be illegal. This is clear from the observations in para 44 of the Judgment of the Apex Court at page 2501 which reads as under :
"44. The power which is conferred under this Chapter is distinguished from the power of detention by executive action under Article 22 of the Constitution. Although the order to execute a bond, issued before an offence is committed, has the appearance of an administrative order, in reality it is judicial in character. Primarily the provision enables the Magistrate to require the execution of a bond and not to detain the person. Detention results only on default of execution of such bond. It is, therefore, not apposite to characterise the provision as a law for detention contemplated by Article 22. The safeguards are therefore different. The person sought to be bound over has rights which the trial of summons case confers on an accused. The order is also capable of being questioned in superior courts. For this reason, at every step the law requires the Magistrate to state his reasons in writing. It would make his action purely administrative if he were to pass the order for an interim bond without entering upon the inquiry and at least prima facie inquiring into the truth of the information on which the order calling upon the person to show cause is based. Neither the scheme of Chapter nor the scheme of section 117 can bear such an interpretation. We accordingly, held in the case of Madhu Limaye (Writ Petition 307 of 1970), Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti, reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2481 that as the case was simply adjourned from time to time and there was no inquiry before remanding him to custody his detention was illegal. We may now briefly notice the remaining sections of the Chapter...."
10. We will deal with this aspect of the matter when we come to the failure on the part of the Magistrate to pass any order on 18th December, 1997 to which date the matter was adjourned on 6th December, 1997. We must first, consider the question as to whether the custody from 6th December, 1997 to 18th December, 1997 was authorised by any provision of law. In the absence of any order passed by the Magistrate under section 116(3) of the Code, we are left with no alternative but to hold that the detention of Jitendra Tiwari from 6th December to 18th December, 1997 was wholly unauthorised and was without jurisdiction.
11. There is yet another aspect of the matter which needs to be highlighted. Our attention has been drawn by Shri Patil to the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of Police, Thane on 17th September, 1991 cautioning the Executive Magistrates in the exercise of their powers under Chapter VIII of the Code. This was in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Salim Khan and others, where this Court had quashed the proceedings taking a view that the Special Executive Magistrates were not entitled to exercise powers of Executive Magistrates and they cannot be conferred with the powers of Executive Magistrates under section 107 of the Code. The State Government had initially, by Notification dated 11th April, 1974, appointed all Assistant Commissioners of Police in the metropolitan area of Greater Bombay as Special Executive Magistrates. By another notification dated 20th October, 1976 the Government conferred on them powers of an Executive Magistrate under section 107 of the Code. This action of the State Government was challenged by Mohd. Salim Khan and others which challenge was upheld by this Court. The State of Maharashtra filed appeal to the Apex Court and while allowing the appeal, the Apex Court observed that Special Executive Magistrates are also Executive Magistrates. They are given a different appellation perhaps to distinguish them from the category of other Magistrates appointed under section 20. Their area of operation may be limited and the terms of appointment may be different. But nevertheless, basically, they remain as Executive Magistrates and they do not cease to be so by being called with different designation. Since they are appointed as Executive Magistrates, they are entitled to exercise the powers conferred by the Code much the same way as other Executive Magistrates and it was therefore, unnecessary for the State Government to have conferred the powers under section 107 on the Special Executive Magistrates by separate notification dated 20th October, 1976. In this view of the matter, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court.
12. Referring to the above decision which is reported at , the Commissioner of Police, Thane had issued certain guidelines-directions which are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The guidelines take a note of the fact that there were allegations that the police were misusing the powers vested in them under Chapter VIII of the Code. Caution has been sounded to the Assistant Commissioners of Police who are exercising powers under Chapter VIII to be extremely careful while reading the relevant papers, initiating action and passing orders under Chapter VIII of the Code. The possibility of the subordinate staff misusing the powers vested in the police while calling upon the persons to execute interim bond, final bond etc. has been specifically referred to. The objectionable practices resorted by the subordinate staff of the Assistant Commissioners of Police have been considered. In the light of all these facts useful guidelines have been issued.
13. In addition to the above guidelines, we wish to emphasise that when an Assistant Commissioner of Police exercises the powers of a Special Executive Magistrate, it will be necessary for him to bring to the notice of the person against whom the proceedings are initiated that the Assistant Commissioner of Police is acting as Special Executive Magistrate and not as Police Officer. The manner in which the present proceedings are conducted, leaves much to be desired. Apart from the stereo type proforma statements, no care has been taken to observe the elementary requirements of sub-section (3) of section 116 of the Code. No case has been made out in writing that immediate measures were necessary to direct the person to execute a bond. No time was given to the person who was supposed to be a petty thief even to contact anyone for furnishing the bond in the sum of Rs.3,000/-. The power to detain him in custody till the time bond is executed is undoubtedly discretionary power as is clear from the closing words of sub-section (3) of section 116 of Code.
14. In the case, the order passed on 6th December, 1997 is not happily worded. The operative part of the order which is in Marathi reads that the respondent was called upon to give a bond of Rs. 3,000/-, with one surety for the period of six months. The surety should be a respectable citizen of Thane. It is then stated that the respondent should be kept in Magisterial custody till 18th December, 1997 for the purpose of furnishing such bond or he should be ordered to furnish such bond by that date. There is no direction that in the event of his furnishing the bond on or before that date, he should be released. In the affidavit filed before us by the third respondent, there is a reference in para 4 to the charges against Jitendra Tiwari being specified in the notice under section 111. We find no such specification of any change whatsoever in the notice dated 6th December, 1997. Beyond certain general allegations there are no details of any charge in the said notice. It is categorically admitted in para 4 of the affidavit that in the order passed on 6th December, 1997, the requirements of section 116(3) are absent. The affidavit says :
"....... I say that it is true that the order which came to be passed by me asking the accused Jitendra Tiwari to furnish the bond had not specifically stated nor did it contain the words used in section 116(3)....."
While it is stated that the bond was not furnished by Jitendra Tiwari, no order has been passed directing his detention in custody even after 18th December, 1997. Rest of the affidavit is about the death of Jitendra Tiwari subsequently on 25th December, 1997 with which are not concerned at this stage. However, in para 5 of the affidavit reference is made to the fact that Jitendra Tiwari was involved in two cases, one being C.R. No. 37 of 1992 of Naupada Police Station for the offence under section 307 of I.P.C. and other being C.R. No. 124 of 1994 of Thane City Police Station for the offence under sections 454, 457, 380 read with 34 of I.P.C. The first case is in respect of an incident dated 6th March, 1992, whereas the second case is in respect of an incident of 4th August, 1994. While we do not have details of the outcome of the investigation in the two cases, nothing has been stated in the show cause notice issued under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as far as these allegations are concerned. Nothing has been stated even in the second order which is now sought to be termed as an order "Referable to Section 116(3) of the Code". Even while directing Jitendra Tiwari to furnish interim bond, reference could have been made to these cases to inspire confidence that the third respondent has applied his mind to the material on record and has not passed a stereo type order without application of any mind. First time, in the affidavit before us, these details have been disclosed which is thoroughly unsatisfactory.
15. It is of some importance to note that on 6th December, 1997, the third respondent adjourned the case to 18th December, 1997. A copy of the letter addressed to the Incharge Officer, Central Jail, Thane on 6th December, 1997 has been produced before us. It says that the case was adjourned to 18th December, 1997 and Jitendra Tiwari should be produce before the Magistrate on that date. However, there is no record to show as to what happened on 18th December, 1997. There is neither any proceeding recorded on 18th December, 1997 adjourning the case nor was a final order passed under section 117 concluding the enquiry. If that be so, the detention of Jitendra Tiwari beyond 18th December, 1997 is wholly illegal.
16. Jitendra Tiwari was arrested at 11.45 a.m. on 5th December, 1997; he was at Naupada Police Station from 5th to 6th December, 1997. Pursuant to the order under section 111, he was shifted to Thane Central Jail on 6th December, 1997. He remained there till 21st December, 1997, when he complained of giddiness and convulsions. He was brought before the Chief Medical Officer, Thane Central Jail at 11.30 a.m. on 21st December, 1997. He was admitted as an indoor patient in the Thane Jail Hospital and was given medical treatment before he was shifted to J.J. Hospital, Mumbai in Jail ambulance. He was kept at J.J. Hospital from 21st December, 1997 to 25th December, 1997 and he died at 5.45 a.m. on 25th December, 1997 at J.J. Hospital. While he was arrested at 11.45 a.m. on 5th December, in the wireless message sent by the Superintendent of Thane Central Jail to the Chairman, National Human Rights Commission., New Delhi, the date of arrest has been mentioned as 6th December, 1997. The report of Head Constable More which is the basis of the action taken by the third respondent categorically mentions that Jitendra Tiwari was arrested at about 11.45 a.m. on 5th December, 1997.
17. The above facts, in our view, show callous approach on the part of the said officers of the 1st respondent State while dealing with the liberty of the citizen. There is no justification in the nature of an order under section 116(3), justifying the detention of Jitendra Tiwari from 6th to 18th December. In the absence of any order or proceeding recorded on 18th December, further detention from 18th December till the date of his death is equally illegal. We have therefore, no alternative but to hold that the detention of Jitendra Tiwari initially from 6th December to 18th December 1997 was wholly illegal in the absence of an order under section 116(3) of the Code. Similarly in the absence of any order on 18th December, 1997 even adjourning the proceeding, assuming that such a course was permissible in view of what the Apex Court has said in Para 44 of its judgment in Madhu Limaye's case (see para 9 above), further detention of Jitendra Tiwari from 18th December till 25th December was equally illegal.
18. Coming to the second question about the circumstances in which Jitendra Tiwari died at J.J. Hospital on 25th December, 1997, it is true that the mother has alleged police excesses and "possible merciless beating" by the police while he was in their custody namely from 5th to 6th December, 1997. The petitioner mother says that her son died an unnatural death. He was a young boy of 20 years and he was hale and hearty. According to the petitioner, he was assisting her in her trade as a vegetable vendor and was also doing the work of painting. He was picked up while he was standing by the side of his mother near the vegetable hand cart on 5th December, 1997. She was not informed of the whereabouts of her son thereafter though she enquired at more than one police station. It is true that the affidavit of head constable More contains a statement that information regarding arrest was given to the petitioner. If Jitendra Tiwari had obtained bail in two cases, one where he was charged with the offence punishable under section 307, in respect of the incident of 6th March, 1992 which was the subject matter of C.R. No. 31 of 1992 and the other in respect of the offences punishable under sections 454, 457 and 380 read with sections 34 of I.P.C. regarding the incident of 4th August, 1994 which was the subject matter of C.R. No. 124 of 1994, in our view, it is extremely unlikely that on his mother and two brothers being informed of the requirement of furnishing a bond of Rs. 3,000/- they would not have respondent. That apart, we do not have any details as to who informed the petitioner, in what manner. No affidavit of a constable who is supposed to have gone to the petitioner's house and informed her, is filed before us. The manner in which the proceedings are conducted, leaves a doubt in our mind as to whether the petitioner was at all informed of the arrest of her son.
19. However on the question of death of petitioner's son, two affidavits are filed before us. One is by P.S.I. Vithal Ghatge on 16th March, 1998 along with copy of the post mortem report. The probable cause of death in the said post mortem report is:
"Death due to pyogenic meningitis (Natural)"
The other affidavit is by Shri Koli, Jailor of the Thane Central Jail on 19th March, 1998 denying the allegations of any ill-treatment to Jitendra while he was in the jail. As far as the cause of death of Jitendra is concerned, it is not possible for us, in the present enquiry, to record positive findings as to the circumstances resulting in his death. This would require evidence to be adduced which in a petition of this nature, is not possible for us to do. In the circumstances, we prefer to adopt the course indicated by the Apex Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India and another, 1995 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 572. In view of the contradictory versions before the Apex Court regarding the circumstances leading to the death of two persons, the Apex Court thought it proper that enquiry be made by the District & Sessions Judge, who was authorised to record evidence of witnesses and submit a report to the Apex Court. We propose to direct the District & Sessions Judge, Thane to hold an enquiry into the circumstances and the cause of the death of Jitendra Tiwari in the Thane Central Jail on 25th December, 1997. In the event of District & Sessions Judge coming to the conclusion that the death was as a result of any act or omission of the concerned officer of the State, he will also determine the quantum of damage and compensation payable to the petitioner in that behalf.
20. However, as far as the illegal detention of the petitioner's son from 6th December to 25th December is concerned, we propose to dispose of the matter by awarding compensation to be paid to the petitioner for the illegal detention of her son from 6th December to 25th December, 1997. As indicated earlier, this period is split into two parts i.e. (i) from 6th December to 18th December 1997 and (ii) from 18th December to 25th December 1997. In the light of the findings recorded by us in paras 14 to 17 above, it must be held that the detention of Jitendra Tiwari was wholly unauthorised and illegal. We therefore, direct respondent Nos. 1 and 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner by way of compensation for illegal detention of her son from 6th December to 25th December, 1997.
21. As indicated above in para 19, the District and Sessions Judge, Thane will hold enquiry into the circumstances and the cause of death of Jitendra Tiwari and in the event of his coming to the conclusion that any officer/s of the respondent State is/are guilty of any act or omission resulting in the death of Jitendra Tiwari, the District & Sessions Judge, Thane will also determine and order the compensation payable by such officer/s or the State to the petitioner. Such enquiry to be completed and orders to be passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this writ by the District and Sessions judge, Thane. Needless to say that the District and Sessions Judge will permit the parties to file their pleadings before him, give them opportunity of leading evidence including cross-examination of the witnesses, follow the principles of natural justice and pass a reasoned order.
22. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 jointly and severally as per para 20 above, should be paid within a period of six weeks from today. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 will pay cost of this petition to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 750/- each within six weeks from today.
23. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
24. At this juncture, Shri Patil, A.P.P. prays for stay of operations of this order. Prayer rejected.
25. A copy of this Judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, the Secretary, Law & Judiciary, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya and the Director General of Police, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.