Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has recently imposed a cost of Rs 20,000 after a police officer failed to appear before the court due to Bandobast Duty.

A division bench of the high court, comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, was hearing a petition filed in the year 2012 revolving around an FIR filed in the year 2010 that came to be dismissed in default. The petition was later restored on 26/11/2024 since the bench found sufficient justification for its restoration.

The petition was directed to be listed on 3rd December on the supplementary board. The bench was informed that the petitioner had passed away and the petition was pursued by petitioner no. 2.

When the bench asked the Additional Public Prosecutor MM Deshmukh about the status of the investigation it was informed that the investigation was almost complete.

When the bench put certain queries in this regard, she was unable to respond since Avinash Babulal Mandale, the Investigating Officer who is to impart necessary instructions, was not present. Vilas Nana Kothe, PSI present in the court informed that the Mandale, was absent since he has been entrusted with bandobast duty in Talasari.

The bench said that if he was entrusted with any other duty, he should have equipped other subordinate officers or his associates with necessary instructions so that the matter would have proceeded.

The high court observed that it was sensitive to the fact that law and order is an important sovereign task that is entrusted to the Police Department but since they are also investigating officers in several crimes and are respondents in various proceedings filed before the court, without their instructions or cooperation and in their absence proceedings cannot leap forward, as we never intend to have one-sided decisions based upon the pleadings in the petition and expect an appropriate response from the respondents, the investigating officers, or the party who face certain allegations.

The division bench further said that even the court is under pressure to dispose of the petition at the earliest since it was filed in 2010.

“In case like this which is pending before this Court for more than a decade, we do not think we are unjustified in asking officers to render their cooperation, since we are also under the pressure of disposing of the petitions at earliest and in case like this where the FIR is filed in the year 2010 and during the pendency of the petition, even petitioner No.1 has passed away, we found justification in directing that the petition shall be taken up for final hearing. However we find that on account of the absence of the concerned officer we are not able to take up the petition further,” the order reads.

While deprecating the approach of police officers and investigators the high court said “Today, just in absence of proper instructions being imparted to learned Prosecutor, we are required to adjourn the proceedings and we feel that it is nothing but sheer wastage of judicial time, as the entire judicial system is aware as to what steps are required to be taken for listing of a proceeding before the Court and what is its costs,” the order states.

The bench proceeded to impose a cost of Rs. 20000 on the State of Maharashtra. It said that it leaves it to the State to recover the cost from the officer who is responsible for dereliction of his duty in not attending the proceedings on the due date.

It also said that it is open for the State Government to recover the cost from the person who has entrusted the officer with bandobast duty, despite being aware of the fact that an important matter is listed

Case title: Dr Anees Ahmed Shafique Ahmed & Anr vs State of Maharashtra