By SayemaSahar,
From the Court of Honourable Justice Anant S. Dave (Date: 22/03/2012)
On 30.10.1990, while the petitioner (Sanjiv Bhatt) was serving as Assistant Superintendent of Police at Jamnagar, wide spread communal riots took place, including incidents of loot, arsenal etc. at Jam-Jodhpur and pursuant to the directions and order issued by the District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, to control riots, the petitioner had visited the site, and to maintain law and order situation, arrested about 133 persons. The arrested persons were sent to judicial custody on 31.10.1990. On 08.11.1990 the accused persons were released on bail. However, on 18.11.1990 one PrabhudasMadhavjiVaishnani died in the hospital, and therefore, brother of the deceased lodged complaint being CR No.I-102 of 1990 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 506(1) and 114 of the IPC against all the police officers. The investigating officer also sought sanction to prosecute the police personnel under Section 197 of the Code. On 22.03.1995 the competent authority of the State Government passed anadministrative order denying sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short, `the Code’] and the State Government took a conscious decision that death of the deceased was natural and that the police officers were discharging their official duties in good faith and bonafide and were acting as required under sections 129, 130 and 131 of the Code. Accordingly, by a reasoned order the sanction came to be refused.
Para 11.
Having heard learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, including the impugned order, I am inclined to accept the arguments canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that upon withdrawal of revision application on 15.07.2011, the petitioner was virtually rendered remediless inasmuch as the petitioner, who was one of the respondents, had truly and faithfully relied on the remedy undertaken by the State Government in filing revision application being Revision Application No.21 of 1996. Initially, the State Government had refused to grant sanction under section 197 of the Code by assigning reasons on the basis of verification of record that the action attributed to the petitioner was in discharge of his official duties and the said administrative order was passed after verification of various facets in exercise of administrative powers and the said decision remained final.
Para 12.
Keeping in mind the doctrine of equality before law which demands that all the litigants, including the State, as a litigant, are to be afforded same treatment of law, is administered in a even handed manner, the remedy persuaded by the State till July, 2011, the petitioner was well within the permissible bonafide in not pursing independent remedy and the words `sufficient cause’ receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when no negligence or inaction or want of bonafide can be attributed to the petitioner herein, and therefore, on sufficient cause being shown, the learned revisional court ought to have condoned the delay in filing revision application by the petitioner.
Para 13.
That upon considering the overall facts of the case, this Court has noticed a flip flop on the part of the State of Gujarat in pursuing the remedy of revision and creating a stalemate in the proceedings of Sessions Case No.35 of 2001, therefore, delay of about 14-15 years in filing revision application by the petitioner in July, 2011 for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. It is unfortunate that due to approach of the State Government, as above, the proceedings before the revisional court / sessions court remained pending and belated realization by the State Government of injustice to victim, would ensure the victim to claim compensation from the State and the State is duty bound to compensate the victim suitably on ad-hoc basis subject to outcome of proceedings in the trial.
Para 17.
The revision application filed by the petitioner is pending since July, 2011, the revisional court is directed to take up the hearing of the said revision application in accordance with law and shall decide the same preferably within 6 weeks from the receipt of writ/order of this Court
About the case:
The much talked about custodial death case against Sanjiv Bhatt dates back to the communalriots of 1990 following the arrest of Advani by LaluYadav in Bihar and a simultaneous attack on Babri Masjid. The entire nation was under the grip of communal tension and so was Jamnagar!
The young ASP of Jamnagar, Sanjiv Bhatt, was sent to control the situation in Jamnagar, little did he know at that time that his discharge of duty which resulted in arrests and some injuries to contain the volatile situation would become the fodder for a reactive witch hunt campaign by a Government trying to clean its tracks by creating a case of custodial death of one PrabhudasVaishnani who was amongst those who were sent to judicial custody following the police actions to contain the rioters.
It is pertinent to note that the death of the deceased, PrabhudasVaishnani was natural due to renal failure and no custodial torture or violence was caused. There was no injury marks on his body when he was made to appear before the magistrate.
In the year 1995 the competent authority of the State Government passed anadministrative order denying sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the State Government took a conscious decision that death of the deceased (PrabhudasVaishnani) was natural and that the police officers were discharging their official duties in good faith and bonafide andwere acting as required under sections 129, 130 and 131 of the Code.
In the year 2004, the State Government decided to withdraw the Revision Application filed in the Sessions Court, Jamnagar. However, in2005 it was again decided to continue with the said revision application.
On 27th September 2011, Sanjiv Bhatt filed an affidavit in the HarenPandya murder case. Following the affidavit, Modi’s team resurrected the 21-year-old custodial death case, changing its stand once again, this time to let the officer face the prosecution.
Such has been the stand of the Government on this much hyped case of custodial deathagainst Sanjiv Bhatt.
(The writer is a Delhi-based journalist, can be contacted on [email protected])