BHIMRAO ASHRUJI MHASKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a double graduate and is a permanent resident of Shirpur, Dt. Dhule and which is a tribal area. The petitioner claims to be an active member of Chhatra Yuva Sangharsha Vahini and is working for the uplift and progress of tribal people who inhabit Shirpur and areas round about. The petitioner claims that these tribal people are deprived of educational and financial facilities and are leading a life of total depravation of economic advantage. The petitioner claims that he along with a group of young people are working for the downtrodden for several years. Naturally, they came in conflict with vested and political interests in the area. The age old battle between the haves and have not continues in this backward region of the State and it is the grievance of the petitioner that the powerful state of the society having political and economic clout use the Government machinery for harassing the petitioner and preventing him from bringing injustice done to the tribals to the notice of the people. The petitioner claims that the police authorities adopt proceedings one after another against the petitioner by resorting to the provisions of section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner is detained in custody for no fault.

(2.) THE petitioner complains that on March 19, 1989 the petitioner was taken into custody by Sub-Inspector of Police Shirpur police station, in exercise of powers under section 151 and, thereafter, produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shirpur on March 20, 1989. The Sub-inspector of Police submitted a report to the Judicial Magistrate requesting that the petitioner should be remanded to magisterial custody in exercise of powers under section 151 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the activities of the petitioner are in breach of the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal Anti-social and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980. The Judicial Magistrate passed order on the report made by the Sub-inspector and directed the petitioner to the kept in custody till March 23, 1989. It is the grievance of the petitioner that on March 23, 1989 he was not produced before the Magistrate, but behind his back the remand was extended till March 28, 1989. On March 28, 1989 the Sub-inspector again requested the Judicial Magistrate to extend the period of remand, but the Magistrate declined to grant the request and directed the petitioner to be set at liberty forthwith. The petitioner claims that on March 20, 1989 and on March 28, 1989, when he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shirpur, he was brought from the custody in handcuffs, although there was no occasion to handcuff the petitioner. The petitioner submits that he had never indulged in any violent activities or was guilty of running away from police custody, but the Sub-inspector i. e. respondent No. 2 with a view to humiliate, handcuffed the petitioner and brought him before the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner complained to the Judicial Magistrate on March 28, 1989 against the action of the Sub-inspector in handcuffing him. The Magistrate by order dated March 28, 1989 observed that it is the choice and discretion of the police machinery to determine whether the petitioner should be brought in court in handcuffs or not. The Magistrate observed that police being on trusted with the maintenance of law and order, the Magistrate is not concerned as to how the petitioner was brought before the Court.

(3.) THE petitioner then approached this Court by filing the present petition on July 23, 1989 and the two prayers made in the petition are " (a) that the State of Maharashtra and the Police Sub-inspector be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for illegal act of handcuffing the petitioner; and (b) a declaration that the provisions of section 151 (3) of the code of Criminal Procedure as amended by section 18 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti social and other Dangerous Activities Act, 1980 be declared to be ultra vires of the Constitution. In answer to the petition, respondent No. 2, G. B. Pawar, Sub-inspector of Police, has filed return affirmed on September 27, 1989. Respondent No. 2 claims that the petitioner was not handcuffed when he was taken to the Court either on March 20, or on March 28, 1989. Respondent No. 2 then asserts that the escorting party who had taken the petitioner to the Court had not handcuffed the petitioner though as a precautionary measure the escorting party had carried handcuffs while taking the petitioner from jail to the Court. The State of Maharashtra has not filed any return.