Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Writ Petition 865 of 2003 was instituted in the public interest for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Shri Anna Hazare, the Petitioner before the Court invoiced jurisdiction on the basis of the following averments:

10. On 7th June 2002, the Pone Police arrested three persons in possession of counterfeit stamps and registered a case, C. R. 135/2002 under Sections 120-B, 255, 259, 260, 263-A, 263B, 471, 472, 474 and 34 of the Penal Code at Bund Garden Police Station, Pone. It was alleged that in the coarse of investigation, the Pune Police carried out searches at several places including Pune, Mumbai and Bhiwandi and seized a huge cache of counterfeit stamps, stamp-papers and printing machinery worth over Rs. 2,100 crores. The Pane Police filed the first chargesheet on 3rd September 2002, by which 20 persons were chargesheeted and 19 were shown as wanted accused. The records, it was alleged, showed that the crime was committed by an organised crime syndicate run by Abdul Karim Telgi. The criminal activities of this syndicate, it was stated, started several years ago; they stretched across several States in India and as many as 27 cases had been registered against Telgi and his associates in the country. The Petition contains an averment that Mr. S.M. Mushrif, the Seventh Respondent, who as Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), Pune supervised the investigation had levelled serious allegations against Senior Police Officers including the Applicant, R.S. Sharma, in letters dated 16th October 2002 and 23rd October 2002 inter alia addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra. The Government of Maharashtra thereupon constituted a Special investigating Team (SIT) on 2nd November 2002 headed by Shri S.K. Jaiswal, Deputy inspector General of Police, S. R. P. F., Mumbai, to make an indepth investigation and for follow up action in the bogus stamp papers' case. The SIT, it was stated, submitted its repeat sometime in April 2003. According to the Petitioner, the SIT report describes "the dubious conduct of the Pane Police in such an important case of counterfeit stamps as an act of collective irresponsibility". According to the Petitioner, the SIT report showed that the Police had received a communication from the Karnataka Government to the effect that while monitoring and recording telephonic conversation of A. K. L. Telgi, the Kamataka Police received information that M.C. Mutani, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pune had accepted a bribe of Rs. 15 lakhs and had struck a bargain with Telgi for the deletion of the names of his wife and certain others from the chargesheet. According to the Petitioner, the SIT report indicates serious irregularities and lapses on the part of the Applicant, R.S. Sharma, who was then Commissioner of Police, Pune. it was alleged that though the applicant was aware of the dubious credentials of A.C.P. Mulani, the latter was included in the SIT formed in September 2002 even after Mulani was transferred by the Government on 4th September 2002 from the City of Pune upon receipt of information from the Kamataka Government. The Petitioner averred that though the SIT report had made a severe indictment of the Applicant herein, on 24th April 2003, the then Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra, (Shri Chhagan Bhujbal) held a press conference in connection with the Action Taken Report and had given a clean chit to the Applicant. The allegations which were levelled by Shri S. M. Mushrif war thereafter confirmed and reiterated in the Jaiswal Report as well as in the notings by Shri O. P. Bali, Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order). Though an enquiry in a serious matter was pending against the Applicant, he was appointed to the coveted post of Commissioner of Police, Mumbai with effect from 1st January 2003. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution contending that there are substantial lessons to believe that police officers who had carried out investigation in the counterfeit stamps case had been irresponsible and negligent and had not performed their duties in accordance with law. It was alleged that a section of highly placed I. P. S. Officers in Maharashtra had indulged in corrupt practices and actively connived with criminal activities of a nature and magnitude that was liable to derail the Indian economy. Stringent punitive action was, it was urged, consequently warranted. The Petitioner has, therefore, contended that this is a case involving serious criminal offences, spreading over several years, and relating to counterfeit stamps and stamp papers which deprived the public exchequer of thousands of crores of rupees. The operation, it was alleged, was known to officers in the higher echelons of the State of Maharashtra, despite which they had deliberately or otherwise failed to take action against the culprits. There was strong prima facie evidence that some of the officers responsible for the investigation had bargained with the main culprit and collected a vast amount of money by misusing their power and offices. These corrupt practices of officers who war deputed to carry on investigation had subverted the integrity of the administration of justice and the rule of law. The Action Taken Report published by the then Deputy Chief Minister was alleged to be an eye-wash and in these circumstances, the Court was urged to intervene in the matter in order to ensure that the faith of the common man in the administration of justice is not destroyed.

(ii) Proceedings after July 2003:

12. A Division Bench of this Court issued notice in Writ Petition 865 of 2003 on 2nd July 2003 and in companion Writ Petition 705 of 2003 and Public Interest Litigation 58 of 2003. On the request of the Advocate General of Maharashtra, the Court granted three weeks' to the State Government to file its reply. The batch of matters appeared before the Court on 23rd July 2003 at which stage the Court had before it an affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary in the Home Department along with a status report dated 18th July 2003. The Division Bench directed the State Government to file a farther affidavit keeping in view several allegations made in the Petitions before the Court, particularly in Writ Petition (St.) No. 26331 of 2003 wherein it was stated that despite the fact that a complaint had initially been filed as early as on 31st July 1995, no action had been taken for six years. There were, therefore, specific allegations of inaction on the part of the investigating agencies. On 6th August 2003, the batch of matters again came up before the Division Bench and a further affidavit was filed by the Additional Chief Secretary in the Home Department The Division Bench noted that particulars had been supplied as regards cases and the action taken between 1995 and 2002, The State Government stated before the Court that in view of the on going investigation by Bond Garden Police Station and the other cases registered against A.K.L. Telgi and his associates since 1995, " the State Government would not hesitate to strengthen the Special investigation Team so as to link the investigation of all these cases to unearth the scam and take it to its logical end." Hence, it would be necessary for the Court to emphasis that almost since the inception of the litigation before this Court, the Government of Maharashtra appearing through the Advocate General did not adopt an adversarial attitude in the proceedings. Far from there being any contest to the jurisdiction of the Cost to entertain the petitions and to issue appropriate directions. Government stated that it would not hesitate to strengthen the SIT and to link the investigation of all cases with a view to getting to the root of the criminal activity. In its order dated 6th August 2003, the Court made a reference to the serious allegations which were contained in the affidavit filed by Shri S.M. Mushrif (the Seventh Respondent) who was then the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), Fane and directed the Stale to file an affidavit dealing with those allegations. The Court noted that the Additional Chief Secretary had produced on the record a list of counterfeit stamp paper cases relating to Telgi and his gang. After the accused had been released on bail, he as well as one Gaikwad jumped the bail and absconded. They war declared as proclaimed offenders on 24th June 1998. Telgi was rearrested in November 2001 after considerable delay. The Court noted that on 15th November 1995 Telgi filed an Application for anticipatory bail before this Court which was rejected on 1st December 1995. There was a note in the remarks column that before the order was passed, Telgi slipped away from the Court Room and that this was brought to attention of the Court by the Government Pleader. The Division Bench, in the circumstances, directed the State Government to file an affidavit explaining what steps had been taken by the authorities after 1st December 1995 until November 2001 when Telgi was rearrested. The State, was directed to place on the record what actions were taken against the erring officers in relation to the escape of Telgi from the premises of this Court. M. C. Mutani, Additional Commissioner of Police was due to retire from service on 31st August 2003 and the attention of the Court was drawn to the fact that though there were recommendations to place him under susperssion pending disciplinary proceedings, no action was taken. The Government was directed to file an affidavit dealing with all these circumstances. Thereafter, on 27th August 2003, a statement was made before the Court by the Advocate General that Motani had been placed under suspension and that he would be charge sheeted before 31st August 2003 when he was due to retire. (The order of the Court then also recorded the statement of the Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of C.B.I., stating that he had received a Letter from the C. B I. Stating that the investigation should not be ordered to be conducted by C. B. I.) The order dated 27th August 2003 was then followed by further directions that were issued by this Court on 4th September 2003 and 24th September 2003.

16. When the matter came up before this Court on 4th September 2003 (which was preceded by a hearing on the previous day), the Applicant herein, had serious reservations about allowing the investigation to be supervised by Mr. O.P. Bali who had by then, been appointed as the Director General of Police. The grievance of the Applicant, it must be noted, was that the Jaiswal Report dated 5th April 2003 was leaked to the electronic and print media on 10th April, 2003. The Applicant contended that though according to the Government Resolution dated 2nd November 2002, the SIT had to report to MR. A.K. Agarwal, Additional Deputy General of Police, C.I.D., Pune, contrary to this the Jaiswal Report "landed into the hands of Mr. O.P. Bali, the then Additional Deputy Director General (Law and Order) who commented upon the report". The Applicant stated before the Court that cases relating to the fake stamps against Telgi had been registered in Mumbai and Mr. O.P. Bali was Joint Commissioner incharge Law and Order from May 1993 to January 1996. The working and supervision of the Police Station, it was urged, came under the Joint Commissioner of Police, Law and Order. For good measure, the Applicant also contended that Mr. O.P. Bali was due to retire on 31st October 2003. These submissions are contained in a written note of submissions tendered to the Court. There is, therefore, before us absolutely no dispute about the factual premise that it was the Applicant who seriously opposed the supervision of the investigation under the ultimate authority of Mr. O.P. Bali who was then the Director General of Police. In these circumstances, the order of the Court dated 4th September 2003 recorded that the State of Maharashtra would strengthen the SIT which would also enquire into all the other cases involving Telgi. Most importantly,the order recorded that " it is agreed by all the parties that such investigation may be conducted under the supervision of Mr. S.S. Puri, retired Director General of Police Clause (iv) of the order of the Court dated 4th September 2003, therefore, recorded that such investigation would be done under the supervision of Mr. S.S. Puri, retired Director General of Police in view of the consensus that had been arrived at between the parties.

24. In sum and substance, the orders passed by the Court since July 2003 and particularly the orders dated 4th September 2003 and 24th September 2003 must be considered in the background of some of the striking features of the present case. Firstly, there have been serious allegations and a strident criticism of gross inaction on the part of the investigating machinery in the Bombay case since the year 1995. Secondly, in 1995, Telgi had reportedly slipped away from the Court in the course of the hearing of his application for anticipatory bail. The Division Bench in these circumstances recorded a direction requiring the State Government to explain what action had been taken against the erring Police officer. Thirdly, though Telgi had been declared as a proclaimed offender, no effective steps were taken by the State to apprehend him and the Division Bench considered it necessary to direct the State to explain why there was inaction on the part of the State. Fourthly, the material which had been placed on the record in relation to ACP Mulani led the Division Bench to require the Government to place on the record a status report in that regard. Fifthly, the Government of Maharashtra stated before the Court that it sought to strengthen the SIT by bringing all cases under one investigating team. Sixthly, an important facet of the case related to Mushrif's allegation about the role of the Applicant as the then Commissioner of Police, Pune.