• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • News/Articles
  • Merely Publishing News Against Cop Won’t Create Disaffection Amongst Police Or Incite Them To Act Against Govt: Bombay HC

Latest News

Back

Merely Publishing News Against Cop Won’t Create Disaffection Amongst Police Or Incite Them To Act Against Govt: Bombay HC

Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  02 Dec 2020     Views:320

     In a significant and positive development, the Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad in a latest, landmark, learned and laudable judgment titled Mr Ravindra vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary and 3 others in Criminal Application No. 356 of 2020 has very rightly ruled that allegations levelled against a police officer that he is involved in criminal activities and publishing news report regarding the same would not incite the force to act against the government (within the meaning of Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922). The Bench of Justice TV Nalawade and Justice Shrikant D Kulkarni allowed the plea of the applicant that case filed against him for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 be quashed and set aside. Very rightly so!

     To start with, Justice TV Nalawade who authored this notable judgment for himself and Justice Shrikant D Kulkarni sets the ball rolling by first and foremost observing in para 1 that, “Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. The learned APP represented respondent No. 4 informant, who was police officer.”

     To put things in perspective, it is then stated in para 2 that, “In F.I.R. given on 2.1.2020 to Tuljapur Police Station, District Osmanabad, it is the contention of respondent No. 4 that he was working in Tuljapur Police Station as Police Inspector from 2.11.2019. It is his contention that he and Sub Divisional Police Officer Shri. Dilip Tiprase had taken steps to curb illegal activities which were going on in the past within local jurisdiction of Tuljapur Police Station. It is contended that he was not succumbing to the pressure of anybody and due to that present applicant has made false allegations against him and Tiprase by sending representation to his superior officer and by publishing news in local newspaper.”

     While elaborating further, it is then pointed out in para 3 that, “It is the contention of respondent No. 4 that he came across the news item published in ‘Khadtar Pravas’ newspaper that a crime of rape was registered against him on the basis of report given by a lady police officer. It is contended that even when ‘B’ summary report was filed in the said crime such news was published. It is contended that when he was taking steps to curb illegal activities, in the news, it was published that he had joined hands with the persons involved in illegal activities and he was getting a share in the money made by those persons. It is contended that in news item it was published that he had joined hands with thieves also and he was getting 50% share in the property stolen by the thieves. It is contended that in the news item it was published that for settlement of the dispute between the parties, he was extracting money from both the sides.”

     To put it succinctly, it is then put forth in para 4 that, “It is the contention of respondent No. 4 in F.I.R. that he had put in 28 years of service and he had worked with honesty and integrity throughout. It is his contention that due to the news item he is feeling disturbed and depressed as the news item has defamed him in the society. It is contended that it is the applicant at whose instance the news item was published and so, he has committed the offence punishable under section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and section 500 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’ for short). On the basis of this report, the crime at C.R. No. 2/2019 was registered against the applicant and during the pendency of the matter charge sheet was filed for these offences.”

     To say the least, para 5 then states that, “This Court has carefully gone through the papers filed by both the sides. The learned APP opposed the present proceeding.”

     Truth be told, it is then put forth in para 6 that, “The papers contain record like remand reports. That record shows that in the aforesaid crime, the present applicant was arrested on 9.1.2020 and he was produced before J.M.F.C. at 7.00 p.m. of 10.1.2020. The papers show that the applicant made allegations of ill-treatment, assault against the police officers. The papers show that magisterial custody was granted on 10.1.2020 till 11.1.2020 and the applicant was referred for medical examination. The papers show that medical examination revealed that there were four injuries like contusions on different parts of the body and the age of the injury was within 12 to 14 hours. He was examined on 11.1.2020. On the basis of this record, the explanation was also called by the J.M.F.C. of concerned. The request made for police custody on 11.1.2020, but this request was rejected and on that day, Magistrate released the applicant on bail.”

     While continuing in a similar vein, para 7 then states that “The record shows that on 2.3.2018 one lady police officer had given report against respondent No. 4 that he had sexually exploited her and he had committed the offence punishable under section 376 (2) (G) of I.P.C. The crime at C.R. No. 79/2018 was registered on the basis of a said report in Ashti Police Station, District Beed. It was registered for an offence punishable under section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act also.”

     To be sure, para 8 then states that, “The record shows that applicant sent representation to Director General of Police, Maharashtra on 30.12.2019 and he requested to see that respondent No. 4 is transferred from Tuljapur Police Station. Copies of representation were sent to Collector Osmanabad and District Superintendent of Police Osmanabad. In the representation, he mentioned C.R. No. 79/2018 which was registered against respondent No. 4 and he mentioned the aforesaid allegations which were published in the newspaper. In general, the allegations were made of bad character and corruption against respondent No. 4. Photocopy of the weekly newspaper ‘Khadtar Pravas’ dated 30.12.2019 is also produced on the record. One Prabhakar Londhe is shown as editor of this newspaper. When the representation was sent to a higher officer on 30.12.2019, the F.I.R. was given by respondent No. 4 against the applicant on 2.1.2020.”

     Furthermore, para 9 then discloses that “The learned Senior Counsel Shri. Sapkal representing the applicant submitted that at any stretch of the imagination and even after accepting the allegations made by respondent No. 4 as they are, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed the offence punishable under section 3 of the Act. This Court has carefully gone through the provisions of the Act. This Act was made by the British. The object and reasons of the Act are given as under:-

“Statement of Objects and Reasons:- In view of the attempts that have been made and are being made (a) by means of threats, intimidation and otherwise to induce members of the police-force to refrain from doing their duty, and (b) to spread disaffection among them, the Government of India have for some time had under consideration the question of penalising such attempts. Neither the Indian Penal Code nor the Indian Police Act, 1861, contains provisions to meet this evil. A prosecution could doubtless in certain cases be instituted under section 29 of the Indian Police Act, 1861, read with the abetment sections of the Indian Penal Code, but section 29 of the Police Act was designed to meet ordinary breaches of discipline, and would not cover many dangerous forms of tampering with the police. Moreover, the maximum punishment permissible under that section, viz., three months’ rigorous imprisonment is manifestly inadequate for serious offences of this nature. The Government of India are accordingly of opinion that the authorities should be given additional means of dealing with this form of crime, and it is proposed, therefore, to enact the attached Bill, which has been framed on the lines of section 3 of the English Police Act of 1919 (9 and 10 Geo. V. Ch. 46).”

Interestingly enough, it is then stated in para 10 that, “Section 3 of the Act runs as under:-

“3. Penalty for causing disaffection, etc.:- Whoever intentionally causes or attempts to cause, or does any act which he knows is likely to cause disaffection towards the Government established by law in India amongst the members of a Police force, or induce or attempts to induce, or does any act which he knows is likely to induce any member of a police force to withhold his services or to commit a breach of discipline, shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.

Explanation.- Expressions of disapprobation of the Government with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means or disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government do not constitute an offence under this section unless they the cause or are made for the purpose of causing or are likely to cause disaffection.”  

     What’s more, the Bench then envisages in para 11 that, “Section 4 of the Act saves the acts done by police association and others for certain purposes which are to furthering the interest of members of the police force. Section 4 (A) shows that offences committed under the Act are to be cognizable and non-bailable. These offences are to be tried summarily by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The Maharashtra Amendment shows that maximum punishment which can be given for the offence is imprisonment of three months.”          

     More significantly, the Bench then points out in para 12 that, “In support of the contentions made by the learned Senior Counsel, a copy of judgment delivered in Criminal M.A. No. 7536/2008 decided with other applications on 18.4.2012 by Gujarat High Court (Bharat Desai, Editor, Times of India and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.) is produced. This judgment shows that relief of quashing of F.I.R. was claimed by the editor of Times of India and the crime was registered for offences punishable under section 124-A, 120-B and 34 of I.P.C. and section 3 of the Act. The facts mentioned in the judgment show that various articles were published in the Times of India on different occasions against the newly appointed Police Commissioner of Ahmedabad. There were similar allegations like contacts with criminals against the said Police Commissioner. The Police Commissioner gave a report due to the publication of such allegations in newspaper and the crime was registered. There was one more circumstance in that case. There was the comment of the newspaper against the State Government that a person of the criminal background was appointed as Police Commissioner of Ahmadabad. It was the case of State that due to such publication there was the possibility of creation of disaffection amongst members of the police force and that had created probability that subordinates of Police Commissioner may refuse to obey his orders and that may also spread indiscipline. The High Court held that such comments questioning the wisdom of State Government cannot lead to an inference that there was the intention of the publisher to induce or incite police which is a requirement of section 3 of the Act. It is further held that such disaffection needs to be created amongst police and it should be against the Government. In view of the wording of section 3, this Court holds that the interpretation of section 3 made by Gujarat High Court needs to be accepted and used in the present matter also.”               

     No less significant is what is then stated in para 13 that, “Copy of order made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4815/2013 (N. Sengodan Vs. Secretary to Government, Home (Prohibition and Excise) Department, Chennai and others) is produced. In relation to section 3 of the Act, some observations are made by the Apex Court and they are at para No. 29 and they are as under:-

“29. It is apparent from Section 3 of the Act 1966 that there is no specific ban to form association but there is a restriction to form an association. Police personnel can be a member of, or can be associated in any way with, any trade union, labour union, political association or with any class of trade unions, labour unions or political associations only with the express sanction of the Central Government or of the prescribed authority. For attracting the penalty under Section 3 for causing disaffection, it is to be proved that the person concerned intentionally caused or attempted to cause or done any act which is likely to be disaffection towards the Government established by law in this country among the members of the Police force or induces or attempts to induce or does any act which he knows likely to induce any member of the Police force to withhold his service or committed breach of discipline.”

By making similar observations, Court of this Bench had given relief in Criminal Application No. 3613/2012 (Vijay Harakchand Tatiya and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra) decided on 3.12.2012 and copy of that decision is also produced.”

     Quite remarkably, the Bench then rightly observes in para 14 that, “In the present matter, the relevant allegations made against respondent No. 4 are already quoted. It is the case of respondent No. 4 that allegations are unfounded and they have defamed him. In view of the wording of section 3 of the Act, it can be said that the purpose of the publication of the matter was not to create disaffection amongst police or incite them to act against the Government. Thus, even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are accepted as they are, they cannot make out offence punishable under section 3 of the Act.”

     Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then holds in para 15 that, “This Court had given sufficient opportunity to learned APP to show the provisions of any other Act making liable to the applicant for the commission of the cognizable offences. The learned APP went through the provision of Police Act. He submitted that there is no such provision. It can be said that the aforesaid allegations made by the applicant may amount at the most offence of defamation punishable under section 500 of I.P.C. It is open to respondent No. 4 to take appropriate action permissible under law for making such allegations against him. The use of section 3 of the Act is not possible in such a case and it can be said that respondent No. 4 took such steps that may amount to an abuse of the power. This Court holds that the case filed against the applicant for an offence punishable under section 3 of the Act needs to be quashed and set aside. If that part of the case is quashed and set aside, the remaining offence punishable under section 500 of I.P.C. is non-cognizable one and police case will not be tenable. The learned J.M.F.C. may take appropriate steps in view of this situation. In the result, following order:-

 

O R D E R

(1) Criminal Application is allowed.

(2) The case filed against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922 is hereby quashed and set aside.

(3) It is open to the informant to agitate his private grievance like his defamation which may be punishable under section 500 of I.P.C. by fling appropriate proceeding.

Rule is made absolute in those terms.”

            In essence, the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court has very rightly, reasonably and rationally arrived at the logical, learned and laudable conclusion that such comments questioning the wisdom of State Government cannot lead to the inference that there was the intention of the publisher to induce or incite police which is the requirement of Section 3 of the Act. It was further held that such disaffection needs to be created amongst police and it should be against the government. Very rightly so!


Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  02 Dec 2020     Views:320

News Updates

The Legal Framework of Bail Conditions in India: B...
25 Oct 2024     Views:5855
Changing an Arbitrator Mid-Proceeding: Legal Frame...
23 Oct 2024     Views:5284
IMF Retains India's FY25 GDP Growth Forecast at 7%...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5265
The Evolving Landscape of Russian Anti-Suit Injunc...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5054
Hyundai’s IPO vs Competitors: How the Auto Giant...
15 Oct 2024     Views:5077
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Post Decree...
14 Oct 2024     Views:4727
SEBI Issues Checklist for AIFs, Their Managers, an...
08 Oct 2024     Views:5116
The Siemens v. Russian Railroads Case...
07 Oct 2024     Views:5108
Empowering Minds in Confinement: Bombay HC’s Lan...
03 Oct 2024     Views:5223
The Dynamics of Novation in Contract Law and Its I...
02 Oct 2024     Views:5407
SEBI Establishes Consistent Evaluation Standards f...
01 Oct 2024     Views:5113
Landmark Decision by Austrian Supreme Court on Arb...
30 Sep 2024     Views:5089
Key Considerations for Indian Commercial Claims...
25 Sep 2024     Views:5040
Boom or Bust: Africa’s Oil Giants Face Declining...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5158
The Growing Role of Arbitration in Intellectual Pr...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5118
Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SC...
20 Sep 2024     Views:5440
SEBI's Employee Grievances Prompt Formation of Wor...
19 Sep 2024     Views:5270
Environmental Law in India: Challenges and Opportu...
18 Sep 2024     Views:6100
Navigating the New Legal Landscape of Exclusive Ju...
16 Sep 2024     Views:5233
The Anatomy of Joint Venture Breakups in India (an...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5574
The Integration of ESG in India's M&A Landscape...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5478
Future of AI in Legal Systems and Conflict Resolut...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5666
World Health Assembly Revises International Health...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5520
Pokemon GO Fans Concerned Over Restrictive New Ter...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5637
Landmark Judgment on Setting Aside Arbitration Awa...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5422
Understanding the Process of Issuing Summons in In...
11 Jul 2023     Views:8800
Understanding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)...
10 Jul 2023     Views:7351
Understanding the Mental Health Act in India: A St...
09 Jul 2023     Views:7395
Combating Manual Scavenging in India: A Call for S...
07 Jul 2023     Views:7192
Impleadment in Supreme Court of India: A Comprehen...
05 Jul 2023     Views:8145
Unraveling the Distinction: Culpable Homicide vs. ...
03 Jul 2023     Views:7489
Understanding the Difference between Money Bills a...
02 Jul 2023     Views:6030
Understanding the Civil Procedure Code in India: A...
01 Jul 2023     Views:6806
The Rights of Criminals in India: Upholding Justic...
30 Jun 2023     Views:6070
Exploring the Differences between the US and India...
29 Jun 2023     Views:6075
What to Do If the Police Refuse to Register Your F...
26 Jun 2023     Views:6323
Timeline of Environmental Protocols: A Global Effo...
25 Jun 2023     Views:6023
How to Deal with Cheque Bounce Cases in India...
24 Jun 2023     Views:6003
Pursuing a Lucrative Litigation Career in Indian L...
22 Jun 2023     Views:6053
Understanding the Emergency Provisions of India: S...
21 Jun 2023     Views:6017
Environment Legislation in India: A Comprehensive ...
20 Jun 2023     Views:6373
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
18 Jun 2023     Views:5876
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
17 Jun 2023     Views:5902
Timeline of Same-Sex Laws in India: A Journey Towa...
16 Jun 2023     Views:6348
Sir Creek Dispute and Legal Implications...
15 Jun 2023     Views:6543
Jurisprudence of NDPS Laws in India: A Comprehensi...
14 Jun 2023     Views:6121
Impleadment Proceedings: A Comprehensive Guide to ...
13 Jun 2023     Views:6556
Understanding Continuing Mandamus: A Powerful Judi...
12 Jun 2023     Views:8519
Res Judicata: The Doctrine of Finality in Legal Pr...
10 Jun 2023     Views:6557
Mastering the Art of Legal Drafting: A Comprehensi...
08 Jun 2023     Views:6219
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CP...
07 Jun 2023     Views:11860
Understanding the Laws of War: Protecting Humanity...
03 Jun 2023     Views:5941
Understanding the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC...
02 Jun 2023     Views:6789
The National Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDP...
01 Jun 2023     Views:6368
A Step-by-Step Guide: How to File an FIR in India...
31 May 2023     Views:6067
Zero FIR: An Effective Tool for Prompt Criminal Ju...
30 May 2023     Views:6301
Unveiling the Dissent of Judges in Judicial Judgme...
28 May 2023     Views:5945
Environmental Laws in India: Safeguarding Nature f...
25 May 2023     Views:6395
The Recusal of Supreme Court of India Judges from ...
24 May 2023     Views:6066
Understanding the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Cour...
23 May 2023     Views:6513
Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Compre...
22 May 2023     Views:6724
Landmark Judgments in Arbitration Law in India: A...
21 May 2023     Views:6949
Landmark Cases on Anticipatory Bail in India: A Pa...
20 May 2023     Views:10840
Embracing the Future: How AI is Revolutionizing th...
18 May 2023     Views:6163
Understanding Narcotics Laws in India: A Comprehen...
17 May 2023     Views:6027
Understanding Indian Laws on Cross-Border Transact...
16 May 2023     Views:7156
ADR mechanism of legal adjudication in India...
15 May 2023     Views:5875
Validity of foreign arbitral award in India throug...
14 May 2023     Views:5889
Scope of Section 151 CPC...
13 May 2023     Views:7464
Detailed Overview on Section 482 of Crpc...
11 May 2023     Views:6411
Scope of Decree under CPC...
10 May 2023     Views:5969
Legal development of Arbitration Laws in India....
09 May 2023     Views:6011
Arbitration Laws in India...
07 May 2023     Views:5954
Impact of COVID-19 on Legal Industry...
06 May 2023     Views:8059
Chargesheet not having authority's valid sanction ...
02 May 2023     Views:6232
Same-Sex Marriage in India...
30 Apr 2023     Views:5877
National Commission for Women...
27 Apr 2023     Views:5730
Law making process of India....
26 Apr 2023     Views:6814
Bail Provisions in India...
25 Apr 2023     Views:5753
Life imprisonment in Criminal Law in India...
24 Apr 2023     Views:6166
Contempt of Court...
23 Apr 2023     Views:6008
The collegium system of Judiciary in India....
22 Apr 2023     Views:5693
Remarriage before Expiry of Limitation Period to f...
21 Apr 2023     Views:5694
Need for strict measure of NDPS laws in India....
20 Apr 2023     Views:5849
Nature of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is Q...
19 Apr 2023     Views:8283
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint cannot be rejected m...
18 Apr 2023     Views:6891
Mediation: At the Dawn of Golden Age organized at ...
16 Apr 2023     Views:5975
Central Government's motto should be mediate, not ...
15 Apr 2023     Views:5690
Ambedkar Jayanti Celebrations...
14 Apr 2023     Views:5893
Supreme Court of India calls for Preventive Measur...
12 Apr 2023     Views:5461
Pursuing LL.M is not break in Law Practice, Rules ...
11 Apr 2023     Views:5680
Law should take into consideration realities of co...
10 Apr 2023     Views:5513
Delhi High Court said that peeping into public bat...
08 Apr 2023     Views:6108
Delhi High Court denies bails to AAP's Satyendra J...
06 Apr 2023     Views:6231
Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq Judgement Would App...
30 Jan 2023     Views:5957
Article 311(1) | An Order of Removal From Service ...
26 Jan 2023     Views:6437
Leaders shouldn't disrespect the President or Pri...
17 Jan 2023     Views:5740
New bench will hear Ashwini Upadhyay's Supreme Cou...
15 Jan 2023     Views:5878
Person Who Drove Rashly with the Knowledge that it...
12 Jan 2023     Views:6462
The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot b...
11 Jan 2023     Views:6202
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:96190
  • Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India
    On 11 Dec 2020    Views:73753
  • Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE
    On 14 Dec 2020    Views:71173
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:70311
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)
    On 08 Nov 2020    Views:59670
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1128 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.