Mumbai: The Bombay high court has asked the principal secretary of the law and judiciary department to file an affidavit explaining how a special public prosecutor (SPP) appearing in an atrocities matter has been criticising the police.
The directions were passed after the SPP informed the court in the course of the hearing that the police was in nexus with the appellant developer. Surprised at such a statement by the SPP the HC chided him and asked him why he was speaking against his own client (police).
When it was brought to the notice of the bench that the SPP was taking instructions from the first informant, the HC sought an explanation.
A division bench of justices B.R. Gavai and B.P. Colabawalla was hearing an appeal filed by Ramji Shah a developer against a case registered against him under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in 2017 based on the allegations of Gajanan Kamble who was asked to vacate his house to make way for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) project which Shah was developing.
According to advocate Niranajan Mundargi the appeal was based on the ground that Shah was neither physically present on November 9, 2016 when his men had gone to Kamble’s house to disconnect the electricity nor any complaint of castiest remarks being passed by him was registered with the police in the November 11, 2016 complaint lodged by Kamble. The Malad police had registered cases under section 504, 506 and 141 of the Indian Penal Code against Shah.
Mr Mundargi further added that the complaint of castiest remarks was registered belatedly in November 2017. “If Shah had passed any castiest remarks, the same would have been included in Kamble’s complaint in November 2016, but that was not the case which shows that it was done with an ulterior motive,” said Mundargi.
However, the SPP pointed out to the court that the police at times connived with the developer and probably did not register the atrocities complaint in November 2016.
The HC took cognisance of the statement and asked the SPP as to who he was representing and how he could speak against his own client.
