Lawyer cannot be booked for asking CBI officers on duty for ID cards: Bombay High Court

A lawyer cannot be detained for “obstructing” a government servant (CBI officers) from the discharge of his duty, merely because he asks a team of CBI officers, conducting raid/search operations, to show their identity cards (ID), Bombay High Court. took place on Thursday (November 21).

Sole judge Justice Milind Jadhav sacked two lawyers and a (then) law trainee who were booked in 2007 for obstructing CBI officers from conducting search operations at the premises of one of their clients in Mumbai.

“Mere detention of an official would not amount to an offense under Section 353 of the IPC. The nature of the restraint is crucial. Asking CBI officers to show their identity cards does not prevent them from doing their duty. This is the only thing that was in the file that led to the indictment of plaintiffs no. 1 was the lawyer of the party in question needlessly suffered the consequences of the above action, through no fault of their own.” Justice Jadhav said in the judgment.

In this case, the judge held, there was no retention by the plaintiffs. The bench in clear words said the moment was “an undeniable case of bruised ego and affront caused to the CBI officer” when he was asked to show his identity card and identify himself, leading to subsequent events and complaint against the applicants under Section 353. IPC.

“Requesting CBI officers to reveal their identity cards cannot be considered as an act of assault or criminal force. To bring home the offense under Section 353 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the essential ingredients of Section 353 IPC, which are that the accused assaulted. or used criminal force on them (CBI Officers), that the public servant at the time of commission of the offense was acting in discharge of a duty imposed on him by law, in the present case, none of the ingredients has been prima facie proved”. the judge observed.

The judge observed that the present case was a classic case of “abuse of power by CBI Officers/staff”.

“Only because the CBI officer, when asked to show his identity card, got upset, the CBI officers urged him to immediately call the police authorities and get the complainants arrested by imposing Section 353 IPC. The police authorities also blindly played a subordinate role to the CBI officer by arresting the applicants without agreeing on the applicability of Section 353 IPC,” Justice Jadhav said:

The judge therefore imposed a cost of Rs 15,000 each to be paid to the three plaintiff lawyers for their involvement in the said FIR.

“The corners are awarded to send a clear message to law enforcement agencies to ensure that legal provisions are not misused by them to cause irreparable hardship and suffering to the common man and citizens of this country and that the rule of law prevails. ,” Justice Jadhav made it clear.

As for the third applicant, the judge noted, he was a law trainee at the time and only 17 years old.

“The lives of three applicants before me, who are today practicing lawyers at the Bar, have been scarred by the stigma of the accused attached to their names for the past 17 years. How long can the plaintiffs bear the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads as they have been arraigned as accused in this case?” the decision is read.

This Court, said the judge, can only imagine what must have gone through the mind of a young law student ie applicant no. 3, who was doing an internship at the applicant’s company no. 1 as a law trainee.

“…at that time to have suffered ignominy, disgrace and infamy when on the threshold of entering this noble profession he was arrested. Plaintiff no. 3 is present before me and is now a practicing Advocate at the Bar. is 38 years old today, apart from this, both applicants no. 1 as well as 2 have obviously suffered from the complaint filed under Section 353 IPC because they have been labeled as. accused and being on bail for the last 17 years. The best years of the life of the lawyers/plaintiffs before me were spent in anxiety and running from one court to another to vindicate their names and seek exoneration.” the judge noted.

With these observations, the court released the three lawyers.

Appearance:

Advocate Meenal Chandnani appeared for the applicants.

Additional prosecutor Manisha Tidke represented the state.

Case Title: Gobindram Talreja vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Revision Petition 559 of 2024)

Click here to read/download the Judgment