The answer to the issue would obviously be in the
negative. The reasons are not too for to seek. Even though the
applicant did not take any specific action, though under a duty in
law to take it upon the report dated 3rd May, 2014, if the complaint
which lies at the root of the whole issue itself has been found to be
groundless and has been dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gadchiroli, which order has also been confirmed by this Court, the inaction of the applicant cannot be said to be falling
within the expression “willful neglect of duty,” an essential
ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the
Atrocities Act. The applicant had kept the matter pending as he
did not pass any order on the report and during pendency of the
matter, as a subsequent development, the complaint itself was
found to be groundless by Courts of law. In a given case, keeping a
matter pending for inordinately long time can amount to willful
neglect of duty. But, as the complaint itself has been dismissed by
a Criminal Court, no mala fides can be attributed to the applicant
and, therefore, no willful act on his part can be found in keeping
the matter pending.
14. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider the aspect
of failure or neglect to perform the duty in its proper perspective.
In the circumstances noted in earlier paragraph, it is difficult to
imagine that the applicant could have been held to be liable for
willful neglect or performance of the duty. Therefore, the order
impugned herein has to be termed as illegal and arbitrary and it
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.143 OF 2014
Dr. Rahul s/o. Dharmaraj Khade,
...VERSUS...
State of Maharashtra,
CORAM
: S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 12 th DECEMBER, 2014 .
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)2770
Print Page
negative. The reasons are not too for to seek. Even though the
applicant did not take any specific action, though under a duty in
law to take it upon the report dated 3rd May, 2014, if the complaint
which lies at the root of the whole issue itself has been found to be
groundless and has been dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gadchiroli, which order has also been confirmed by this Court, the inaction of the applicant cannot be said to be falling
within the expression “willful neglect of duty,” an essential
ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the
Atrocities Act. The applicant had kept the matter pending as he
did not pass any order on the report and during pendency of the
matter, as a subsequent development, the complaint itself was
found to be groundless by Courts of law. In a given case, keeping a
matter pending for inordinately long time can amount to willful
neglect of duty. But, as the complaint itself has been dismissed by
a Criminal Court, no mala fides can be attributed to the applicant
and, therefore, no willful act on his part can be found in keeping
the matter pending.
14. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider the aspect
of failure or neglect to perform the duty in its proper perspective.
In the circumstances noted in earlier paragraph, it is difficult to
imagine that the applicant could have been held to be liable for
willful neglect or performance of the duty. Therefore, the order
impugned herein has to be termed as illegal and arbitrary and it
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.143 OF 2014
Dr. Rahul s/o. Dharmaraj Khade,
...VERSUS...
State of Maharashtra,
CORAM
: S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 12 th DECEMBER, 2014 .
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)2770
