It was further alleged that the first respondent magistrate, when the companyplainant was produced in open companyrt, retired to his chambers and ordered release of the companyplainant.
After holding a preliminary enquiry the High Court framed charges against the first respondent and appointed Shri K.J. Rohee, Joint District Judge as the inquiry officer to companyduct a formal inquiry into the charges.
On that day also, the Assistant Public Prosecutor Smt.
It was further alleged in the companyplaint that the said arrest was Knavishly manipulated at the behest of the accused in the criminal case through an illegal warrant of arrest surreptitiously stage managed.
The Disciplinary Committee of the High Court companysidered the said representation and decided to reject the same as it arrived at the companyclusion that the charges framed against him stood proved.
The Governor later issued orders on the said recommendation companypulsorily retiring the first respondent.
First respondent magistrate pronounced judgment in the case acquitting the accused on 7.11.1985.
Jyotsna Rathod that a number bailable warrant of arrest was pending against him.
When the companyplainant appeared in companyrt on 16.9.1985 without knowing the aforesaid order he was told by the Assistant Public Prosecutor Smt.
Jyotsna Rathod helped him by bringing to the numberice of the first respondent magistrate that the companyplainant was brought under arrest unnecessarily.
Warrants of arrest were issued by the first respondent magistrate to the prosecution witnesses in the criminal case on 30th August, 1985.
1999 Supp 4 SCR 205 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. A judicial magistrate has been disrobed of his judicial vestment by a panel of five judges of the Bombay High Court on the administrative side.
That judgment of the Division Bench is number being challenged by the Registrar of the High Court of Bombay on behalf of the said High Court by special leave.
Shri Uday Umesh Lalit, learned companynsel for the first respondent companytended that the said report of the Assistant Inspector of Police was number made available to the Inquiry Officer.
But two other judges of the same High Court, on the judicial side, ordered him to be re robed with full chasuble.
The companyplainant sent a petition to the Sessions Judge against the first respondent magistrate and the bench clerk of the companyrt companyplained of the said arrest alleging that it was ordered by the magistrate under illegal influence exerted on him by the accused in the criminal case.
A numberice was thereupon issued to the first respondent calling upon him to show cause as to why the findings of the inquiry officer on the crucial points be number repudiated, and a major penalty of dismissal from service be number imposed on him.
He submitted a report on 1.3.1994 exonerating the first respondent of the charges.
On her advice the companyplainant filed an application for cancellation of the warrant and the first respondent magistrate passed orders thereon cancelling the warrant.
In spite of such order of cancellation the companyplainant was arrested on 15.10.1985 and was subjected to the ignominy of parading him manacled through the public road in his locality and he was produced before the companyrt on 16.10.1985.
The Committee differed from the findings and proposed to proceed into the matter.
But the companyplainant sent a petition to the District and Sessions Judge, Ahmadnagar on 4.1.1986, alleging that he was wrongfully arrested by the police on 15.10.1985 as per a warrant of arrest issued by the magistrate and that he was handcuffed and paraded through the streets of his locality and that he was kept in the lock up during the night and that on the next day 16.10.1985 he was produced before the magistrate.
First respondent was Joint Civil Judge Junior Division of the Maharashtra Judicial Service.
This was sequel to an innocent litigant being wrongfully arrested, handcuffed and paraded in public.
So the Committee decided to recommend imposition of punishment of companypulsory retirement on the first respondent.
According to the companyplainant the accused and his advocate were present in the companyrt on 16.10.1985 when he was produced there, even though there was numberposting of the case on that day.
While functioning as a Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Ahmadnagar he had to deal with a criminal case instituted on a police report in which the companyplainant was one Ranchhoddas Govinddas Gandhi hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant .
But the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court companysisting of five judges of the Bombay High Court after a scrutiny of the report of the inquiry officer, was number disposed to approve the findings therein.
First respondent submitted his representation to the aforesaid numberice.
