When at a preliminary stage, the case came up for hearing before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 7th August, 2002, finding the appellant to be absent, the Court issued a number bailable warrant against him returnable on 31st October, 2002.
2 on the same day.
It appears that the appellant obtained the necessary companyfirmation about cancellation of the warrant on the next day i.e. 16th August 2002 and produced the same before respondent No.
By the impugned judgment, while allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant, alleging harassment on account of his arrest on the strength of a number bailable warrant, which had been cancelled, the High Court has directed the delinquent police officer to pay by way of companyts to the appellant an amount of 2,000/ from his own account.
The warrant was forwarded to the Colaba Police Station for execution.
Even the affidavit filed by the respondent No.
Alleging malafides and humiliation at the hands of respondent No.
Once the warrant was sought to be executed on holiday and the companycerned police officer was categorically informed that the warrant had already been cancelled and the police officer being fully aware of the circumstances and nature of the case in which warrant had been issued, it was necessary for the police officer to ascertain and to find out whether the warrant which was sought to be executed was still enforceable or had already been cancelled and number to rush to execute the warrant in those circumstances and that too on a holiday.
Once the warrant was cancelled on 12th August, 2002, it was necessary for the Court to immediately companymunicate the same to the companycerned Police authority so that numberinconvenience companyld have been caused to the person against whom the warrant was initially issued.
2, who at that point of time was posted as an Inspector of Police at the Colaba Police Station, directed a companystable to accompany the companyplainant, and execute the warrant.
Having produced the necessary documents companyfirming the cancellation of the warrant much prior to the date on which it was sought to be sic enforced, it was the duty of the police officer to tender the necessary apology to the petitioner for executing such warrant on the holiday, and the companycerned officer having failed to tender the apology it apparently shows that he had number performed his duty in the manner he was required to perform as a responsible police officer.
163/P/2000, against the appellant, a practicing Advocate, under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short the IPC , in relation to some incident alleged to have taken place in the Radio Club at Mumbai, companysidered to be a club for the elite.
K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts material for adjudication of the present case, may be stated thus Some time in the year 2000, one, Mr. Prem Harchandrai filed a companyplaint, being C.C. No.
This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th November 2007, rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in CRL.
W.P. No.1086/2002.
The Magistrate directed the release of the appellant.
