Tags:
Journalism of Courage
MUMBAI, JAN 21: In a significant order, a metropolitan magistrate recently directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Zone VII) to register an offence of criminal trespass against a senior police inspector (Sr PI) for wrongfully seizing a flat at Juhu in October last year.
Metropolitan Magistrate of the 44th court, Andheri, U S Mendjoge issued the directive to DCP K L Prasad to register a case against Sr PI Subhash Dattatray Salvi of D N Nagar police station, following a complaint filed by one Vijay Palande, an accused in a double murder case.
According to the application filed by Palande, on October 31, 1998 a police team from the D N Nagar police station led by police inspector R Kini entered his house at B-11 Mittal Park, Juhu and forcibly moved his cousins and niece Shital Shinde out and locked the premises. The police team reportedly ignored Shinde’s argument that no court hasissued any order regarding seizure of their flat. Later, Palande filed an application in the Bombay High Court for return of the Juhu property.
During hearings on Palande’s plea, investigating officer Kini informed the court that Palande is one of the main accused in the murder of one Swaraj Ranjan Das and his son Anup last year. “Unit 10 of the Crime Branch had arrested Palande and his associate David D’Souza on charges of killing the Das duo and offences were registered against them at Juhu and D N Nagar police stations,” he said adding that the Juhu flat belonged to Anup Das.
In his revision plea, Salvi informed that after killing Anup, Palande had forged the documents of the flat and forcibly grabbed it by evicting Anup’s mother, sister and brother.
Palande’s counsel argued that the police have no powers to seal the flat when the matter is under the court’s consideration, hence it amounted to contempt. While Salvi claimed that the flat was sealed as per the high court judgement on the shoe scam inwhich the police were granted powers to seal the flat under section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In his order, the magistrate observed that there is a vast difference between sealing and attachment. “While sealing is with respect to movable properties, attachment is with respect to immovable properties and in this case a flat is immovable. Hence the observation made by the high court in the shoe scam case is not applicable in this case,” the magistrate pointed out.
“The police have no powers to attach immovable property unless an order is passed by the magistrate,” Mendjoge observed. Therefore, the act of the police in sealing the flat was absolutely illegal and particularly when the matter is under court consideration, he added.
The magistrate further observed that the flat was sealed a couple of days before the filing of the chargesheet. “I fail to understand as to what prevented the police from sealing the flat during the stage of investigation and particularly when the investigation iscomplete,” he added. According to him, the Sr PI has misled the court.
