Buy Law Books For Police Station : Bombay High Court Directs Cop Who Failed To Follow Order

The Order, issued by a bench of Justices Ravindra V Ghuge and BU Debadwar, makes an indicative list of bare acts that have to be purchased by the Officer.

"We are of the view that the Station House Officer should purchase latest bare acts on criminal laws like Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Evidence Act, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA), the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders/Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (MPDA), the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (DV Act), etc., for the Vasmatnagar Rural Police Station."

The Order was issued after the Station House Officer had failed to respond to certain queries posed by the Court in January. For his failure, the Court in March issued an order summoning the officer to court and directing him to remit Rs 10,000 out of his salary

After the Prosecution informed the Court that the fax machine at the Vasmatnagar station was not functioning and he was not aware of the queries transmitted to the Court in January, the Court decided to recall its order directing the deposit of Rs 10,000 and instead urged the Officer to purchase the bare acts.

In Court, the Officer had offered to donate a sum of Rs 2500 to the High Court Bar Library at Aurangabad. However, the Court took the view that the Officer ought to purchase bare acts for the Police Station.

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

Notably, the repealed Prevention of Terrorism Act also finds a mention in the High Court's indicative list of bare acts for the Vasmatnagar station.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a teacher, one Gopinath Galande, who sought directions against the management of a group of schools. The group had allegedly stopped his salary when he refused to pay a gratification amount for continuation of his services. His counsel informed the Court that Galande had filed two complaints, one in 2013 and the other in 2017. The 2017 complaint alleged that a lady teacher was being employed in two schools of the management at the same time.

While the 2013 complaint was dismissed by the police after they did not find any merit in it, a first information report (FIR) was registered against the management in the 2017 complaint for having the same teacher drawing salary from two schools.

The Court had sought the response of the Officer in respect of the status of the 2013 complaint.

On the facts of the case, the Court stated,

"we are of the view that such issues should not be brought before this Court in a criminal Writ Petition since the demand for gratification for continuation in employment can be looked into by the Education Department and if the grievance is not redressed, he can approach this Court on the civil side."

Pointing out that the trial in the 2017 case had culminated in a case before the Trial Court and that the 2013 complaint which was not a part of this writ petition was disposed, the Court disposed the petition.

CASE: Gopinath Galande v. State of Maharashtra

COUNSEL: Advocate K.P. Rodge, Advocate Rodge Pratap G. for petitioner, APP S.J. Salgare for Respondents