18 ac­quit­ted in po­lice sta­tion ri­ot­ing case HC asks par­ties to sub­mit re­ply in Kharghar civic body pe­ti­tion

Hindustan Times ST (Mumbai) - HT Navi Mumbai Live - - NAVI - Tas­neem Kausar ht­for­nav­i­mum­bai@hin­dus­tan­times.com

A lo­cal court has ac­quit­ted all 18 peo­ple in a 2006 case of ri­ot­ing and at­tack on a po­lice post in Bhi­wandi town here.

District Judge AS Bhais­are ob­served that the pros­e­cu­tion failed to prove the charges against all the ac­cused and gave them ben­e­fit of doubt.

The 18 were tried for of­fences un­der IPC sec­tions 143, 147, 148, 335, 336, 395, 397, 427 read with 149, and rel­e­vant sec­tions of the Bom­bay Po­lice Act and Pre­ven­tion of De­struc­tion of Pub­lic Prop­erty Act.

Ad­di­tional pub­lic pros­e­cu­tor Dilip Bahi­ram told the court that on July 5, 2006, the mob pelted stones at a po­lice sta­tion which was be­ing con­structed at Koter­gate in Bhi­wandi and tried to de­mol­ish it. The mob broke lug­gage boxes of SRPF per­son­nel and robbed them of cash, ATM cards, iden­tity cards and set the goods on fire. Around 24 wit­nesses were ex­am­ined by the pros­e­cu­tion. Ad­vo­cate Dhanan­jay Patil, ap­pear­ing for the ac­cused, told the court that his clients were in­no­cent but did not pro­duce any wit­ness.

Judge Bhais­are noted that two key wit­nesses are not ex­am­ined by the pros­e­cu­tion, for rea­sons best known to them. The ma­te­rial ev­i­dence against the ac­cused is miss­ing.

None of the wit­nesses iden­ti­fied the ac­cused in iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pa­rade, as it was not con­ducted by ex­ec­u­tive mag­is­trate.

From the pros­e­cu­tion’s story, it can safely be in­ferred that the mob had at­tacked the po­lice post. But, there is no ev­i­dence on record that the ac­cused per­sons were re­spon­si­ble for the same, the judge noted.

The Bom­bay high court has di­rected the gov­ern­ment and all the par­ties to sub­mit their re­ply on the PIL filed by United Kharghar Ac­tion Com­mit­tee (UKAC).

UKAC has de­manded that Kharghar be made an in­de­pen­dent mu­nic­i­pal cor­po­ra­tion and not be in­cluded in Pan­vel Mu­nic­i­pal Cor­po­ra­tion (PMC) as the state gov­ern­ment has de­cided.

A hear­ing in the case was held on Thurs­day when the court is­sued the di­rec­tions. The gov­ern­ment ad­vo­cate was to present the gov­ern­ment’s say at the hear­ing. It was not done due to some rea­sons and hence the court posted the next hear­ing for Septem­ber 14. It then or­dered that at the next hear­ing along with the gov­ern­ment, the other par­ties in­volved in the process too should sub­mit their re­ply.

Mean­while, on Thurs­day, Kharghar gram pan­chayat at its meet­ing passed a unan­i­mous res­o­lu­tion against be­ing in­cluded in PMC. Along with Kharghar, Owe and Ro­hin­jan gram pan­chay­ats too have op­posed in­clu­sion in PMC.

How­ever, an at­tempt by the op­po­si­tion to pass a sim­i­lar res­o­lu­tion in Kamothe gram pan­chayat did not suc­ceed for lack of quo­rum.

The plan­ning of the pro­posed PMC has been done as per the cen­sus of 2011. Af­ter ex­clu­sion of 36 vil­lages of NAINA, it is likely to be a D cat­e­gory mu­nic­i­pal cor­po­ra­tion.

The pro­posed PMC had ini­tially es­ti­mated an in­come of Rs84 crore from wa­ter charges, prop­erty tax and stamp du­ties from the mu­nic­i­pal coun­cil area and 68 vil­lages that were to be in­cluded in it.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.