Search the Internet           Tips

Bombay police admit mistake in dismissed judge's case

This was disclosed in an affidavit filed by investigating officer R B Chavan in response to a petition filed by Singh challenging the police decision to book him under MCOCA.

Chavan, however, submitted before Justices G A Patil and R M Lodha that post facto sanction could be obtained at any time for trying Singh under MCOCA.

The officer said that papers were placed before the additional chief secretary to the Maharashtra government who had earlier granted authorisation under the Indian Telegraphic Act. However, he does not appear to be the competent authority designated under section 13 of the MCOCA, he admitted.

Singh's counsel V R Manohar and I P Bagadia argued that material collected on the basis of an illegal sanction could not be admitted as evidence and used for framing charges against the accused.

The police officer, however, said there is no bar in the Act for police to obtain sanction even now as no time limit has been prescribed.

Police claim to have intercepted three telephonic conversations between dismissed judge J W Singh, gangster Chhota Shakeel and deceased lawyer Liyakat Ali Shaikh in March-April last year, which disclosed that Singh had 'hired' goons to recover his money.

In view of the affidavit filed by the police officer, Advocate General Goolam Vahanvati admitted the additional chief secretary was not the competent authority to issue authorisation for intercepting the conversations. Such powers were conferred upon the principal secretary (home-appeals and security), he said.

Singh's counsel pleaded that under section 14 (10) of MCOCA, interception can be commenced by the investigating officer with the permission of an additional commissioner of police. However, sanction has to be obtained from the competent authority within 48 hours therefrom.

They said prior approval given by Additional Commissioner of Police K L Prasad in this case was strictly speaking not 'prior approval' because it gave directions to the investigating officer to probe an offence and not to record a First Information Report for invoking MCOCA.

They also argued that sanction obtained under the Indian Telegraph Act had not been referred to a review committee, which was mandatory under the law.

Tell us what you think of this report