The Bombay High Court has expressed serious concerns about the police is not maintaining case diaries in proper manner at police stations and instructed the Maharashtra Director General of Police (DGP) to investigate the matter.
Recently a division bench comprising Justices A S Gadkari and Shyam Chandak observed a recurring issue where case diaries were not being upheld by the police as required by law.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by an individual seeking a directive for his wife, a national of Uzbekistan, to produce their one-month-old daughter. The petitioner alleged that his wife, along with her parents, had absconded with the infant.
The court was apprised that the woman, her parents, and the baby were located at a friend’s residence in Amritsar, Punjab. The petitioner’s wife was arrested and subsequently released on bail.
Advocate Padma Shelatkar, representing the petitioner’s wife, informed the court that the arrest had been conducted in violation of legal provisions, asserting that no notice under section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) had been served prior to the arrest.
Under Section 41A, the police are required to issue a notice to the accused, directing them to appear and provide a statement before making an arrest.
Upon scrutinizing the police investigation papers, including the case diary, the bench observed that the case diary was maintained “in utter defiance” of section 172(1-B) of the CrPC, which stipulates that the diary, containing day-to-day entries of proceedings in the probe, must be properly paginated. The bench further noted that despite high court orders and circulars issued by the Maharashtra DGP, instructing investigative officers to maintain a case diary as mandated by law, these directives had not been effectively communicated to lower-ranking police officers conducting investigations on the ground.
The court expressed concern over such violations and emphasized the need for the DGP to ensure that all police officers take these directives seriously.
The bench directed the DGP to personally investigate the matter and take appropriate legal action against the involved police officer. It also expressed perplexity at the notice under section 41A of the CrPC not being served to the accused person (the petitioner’s wife) but to a relative of a co-accused in Punjab, deeming it a clear breach of section 41-A that requires serious attention from the highest authority of the police department.
The court scheduled next hearing on February 13.
