Panaji, 16th February, 2017 (Magha 27, 1938)

SERIES II No. 46

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]

1035

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture

Order

No. 8/15/2016-17/D.Agri(Part)/302

Government is pleased to grant extension of ad hoc promotion to Shri Pramod Joshi, Agriculture

Officer of this Directorate for the interim period w.e.f. 28-09-2016 to 17-11-2016.

This is issued with due concurrence of the Goa Public Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/

/II/11/2(3)/2014/1633 dated 10-01-2017.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

U. B. Pai Kakode, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 13th February, 2017.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Elections

Goa State Election Commission

—

Notification

No. 3/46/SEC-2017/(Part-V)/150

Whereas the bye-election of ward No. II of Village Panchayat, Cana-Benaulim (General) in Salcete Taluka

in the State of Goa is scheduled to be held on 5th March, 2017.

Now therefore, I, R. K. Srivastava, IAS (Retd.), State Election Commissioner, Goa State, in exercise of the

powers conferred upon me under Article 243K of the Constitution of India and Section 237 of the Goa

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 49 of the Goa Panchayat and Zilla Panchayat (Election Procedure)

Rules, 1996, do hereby notify that the Counting of Votes in respect of bye-election of ward No. II of Village

Panchayat, Cana-Benaulim (General) in Salcete Taluka in the State of Goa is scheduled to be held on

5th March, 2017. Counting will be done on 6th March, 2017 from 8.00 hrs. till the counting is completed

as mentioned below:-

Sr.

Name of the

Ward

Name of Village

Place of counting of votes

No.

Taluka

No.

Panchayat

Salcete

Cana-Benaulim

Room No. 114 in the Chamber of Mamlatdar

Office, Margao, Salcete-Goa.

R. K. Srivastava, IAS (Retd.), Goa State Election Commissioner.

Panaji, 13th February, 2017.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

16TH FEBRUARY, 2017

1036

Goa Human Rights Commission

—

Proceeding No. 23/2012

Inquiry Report

The Complainant has approached this

Commission alleging that the Police Sub-Inspector

Shri Dattaguru Sawant attached to Valpoi Station

illegally detained and assaulted him at Valpoi

Police Station on 26-06-2012.

2. It is the case of the Complainant that on

26-06-2012 at about 20.00 hrs., the Complainant was

coming from Mauxi, Dabem road in his car and

when he reached three roads junction he saw a

group of people gathered at the junction. The

Complainant inquired with the people about the

incident and he learnt that a vehicular accident

had taken place between Omni Car and a Scooter

in which one Mr. Santan Gonsalves who is a friend

of the Complainant and a Muslim person were

involved. The Complainant requested his friends

who had gathered on the spot to settle the matter

amicably. Thereafter, the Complainant proceeded

towards his residence. The Complainant has further

stated that on reaching at his residence, he

received a call from the said Mr. Santan Gonsalves

calling the Complainant at the Valpoi Police Station

for releasing him on bail in case of arrest.

Accordingly, the Complainant went to the Police

Station to help Mr. Santan Gonsalves.

3. The Complainant has specifically stated that

the Police Sub-Inspector, Shri Dattaguru Sawant

asked the Complainant to get out of the Police

Station. It is further stated by the Complainant

that when he was in the varendah of the Police

Station, Police Sub-Inspector, Shri Dattaguru Sawant

came near the Complainant and slapped over and

over on his face and also caught hold of his collar,

dragged him and put him inside the Police

Lock-up.

4. Taking cognizance of the complaint, this

Commission issued notices to 1) the Chief Secretary,

Government of Goa, Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa,

2) The Secretary (Home), Government of Goa,

Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa, 3) Superintendent of

Police (North), Porvorim-Goa and 4) Shri Dattaguru

Sawant, PSI, Valpoi Police Station, Valpoi-Goa. In

pursuance to the notices, the Respondent No. 4

filed reply denying the allegations made by the

Complainant against him. The Learned Advocate

Shri G. D. Kirtani appearing on behalf of the

Respondents filed a Memo stating therein that the

Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 do not wish to file any

reply in view of detailed reply of the Respondent

No. 4. In his reply, the Respondent No. 4 amongst

other things has stated that Head Constable

bearing batch No. 4063 was instructed to visit the

spot for verification and further necessary action.

It is further stated that on reaching the spot the

said Head Constable noticed that a group of around

50-60 people had gathered on the spot and the

Complainant was shouting and/or using foul

language against the Police Department. It is also

stated that the Complainant was trying to provoke

the general public against the Police and that the

Complainant was not in proper state of mind and

was using abusive language against the Police

Department and the Police Officials present at the

site. It is further stated that the said Head

Constable noticed that the Complainant was

smelling of liquor and was intoxicated and was

under the influence of alcohol. It is further stated

that the Complainant was under the influence of

alcohol and this fact was confirmed by the Medical

Officer of the Community Health Centre, Valpoi.

5. The Complainant examined himself before this

Commission as CW1 and also examined two more

witnesses namely, Shri Santan J. Gonsalves (CW2)

and Shri Pradeep Chandrakant Narvekar (CW3) in

support of his case. The Respondents did not

examine any witness in support of their case.

6. We have heard the Complainant and Learned

Advocate Shri G. D. Kirtani for the Respondents.

We have also gone through the records of this

case.

7. The question for our determination is whether

the Complainant was illegally detained and was

assaulted by Shri Dattaguru Sawant/Respondent

No. 4 at the Police Station thereby violating the

basic human rights of the Complainant.

8. The Complainant in his Affidavit-in-Evidence

has stated in clear terms that Police Sub-Inspector

Shri Dattaguru Sawant asked him to get out of the

Police Station. He has further stated that when the

Complainant was in the varendah of the Police

Station, PSI Shri Dattaguru Sawant came near him

and slapped over and over on his face, caught hold

of his collar dragged him and put him inside the

police lock-up. The other two witnesses

namely Shri Santan Gonsalves (CW2) and Shri

Pradeep Narvekar (CW2) who were present at the

place of the incident have corroborated the

evidence of the Complainant (CW1) on all the

material aspects of the case. The Complainant

(CW1) as well as CW2 and CW3 were cross-

examined by the Respondents. However, nothing

has been brought on record to discard or to

disbelieve the evidence of CW1, CW2 and CW3.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

16TH FEBRUARY, 2017

1037

We do not find any material infirmity in the

evidence of CW1, CW2 and CW3 which to our

mind appears to be convincing and trustworthy.

9. The Complainant who argued in person

submitted before us that he was arrested without

any reason. He contended that his arrest is illegal.

He also submitted that the Medical Certificate

regarding alcohol produced by the Respondents is

a false and manipulated certificate.

10. The Learned Advocate Shri G. D. Kirtani

contended that the Complainant was not assaulted

by the Respondent No. 4/Shri Dattaguru Sawant.

He submitted that the Complainant was examined

by the Medical Officer at Community Health Centre,

Valpoi but the Complainant did not make any

Complaint to the Medical Officer on duty. In fact,

the Complainant has admitted in his cross

examination that he did not make any complaint

about the assault by Shri Dattaguru Sawant/

/Respondent No. 4. But then, the mere fact that the

complainant did not make any complaint before

the Medical Officer is not at all sufficient to draw

an inference that the Complainant was not

assaulted by the Respondent No. 4. It is not the

requirement of law that any person brought for

medical examination before the Medical Officer in

assault cases by the Police, should inform the

Medical Officer about-such assault, if any. We

therefore do not find any merit in this contention

of the Respondents.

11. The Learned Advocate Shri G. D. Kirtani

next contended that there is no medical evidence

to prove that the Complainant was assaulted by

the Respondent No. 4. This contention is devoid of

any substance. It is pertinent to note that the

Complainant has alleged that he was assaulted by

slaps only. In such a situation, it would be

ridiculous to expect corroboration to the evidence

of the Complainant by medical evidence.

12. The Learned Advocate Shri G. D. Kirtani next

submitted that the Complainant was under the

influence of liquor at the time of the incident. It

is his contention that the Medical Officer has

certified that the Complainant was under the

influence of liquor at the time of examination. We

also do not find any force in this contention of the

Respondents. At this stage it would be convenient

to look into the Medical Certificate issued by the

Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Valpoi.

By letter dated 26-06-2012, the Complainant was

referred for examination by Valpoi Police. The said

letter dated 26-06-2012 is reproduced below for

the sake of convenience.

Valpoi Police Station

Dtd. 26-06-2012

To,

The Medical Officer,

CHC Valpoi,

Valpoi Satari,

Goa.

Sub.: Request for medical examination.

Ref.: Arrest u/s 151 Cr. PC on 26-06-2012.

Respected Doctor.

I am sending herewith one person namely

Vincent s/o Manuel Fernandes age 45 yrs.,

r/o H. No. 362, Massordem, Valpoi, Sattari Goa for

medical examination since he has been arrested

u/s 151 Cr. P. C.

Kindly medically examine the above mentioned

person and opine whether he is fit to be placed in

police custody.

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

Police Inspector

Valpoi P. S. Goa.

The opinion of Medical Officer is reproduced

below:

-Patient unfit for custody as BP-180/110mmHg

c/o accelerated hypertensive-pt kept under

observation and discharged after treatment.

From the opinion given by the Medical Officer,

it is abundantly clear that the Medical Officer did

not express any opinion that the Complainant was

under the influence of alcohol. It is also pertinent

to note that the Police also did not ask the Medical

Officer to examine the Complainant to ascertain

whether the Complainant was under the influence

of alcohol.

13. The Respondents have also produced a copy

of Medical Certificate which was received by Valpoi

Police Station on 30-06-2012. This Medical

Certificate is reproduced below:

To whom-so-ever it may Concern.

This is to inform you that Mr. Vincent Fernandes,

45 yrs. r/o of Massordem Sattari was brought to

our CHC on 6-06-12 @ 11.10 pm for medical fitness

for custody. Mr. Vincent was examined, he was

under influence of alcohol. On examination his

blood pressure was found to be high i.e. BP=180/

10mmHg. He was given Tab Depin 5mg S/L+Tab

Alprax 0.5mg stat and was kept for observation

overnight.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

16TH FEBRUARY, 2017

1038

Morning patient was discharged & put on

Anhhypertensive medicine.

Morning BP-140/100mmHg.

Patient was discharged on medicine

Tab Amlodepine 5mg

1/2-0—0 x 10 days

Tab Alprax 0.5mg

Fu after 10 days.

Thank You

Sd/-

MO CHC Valpoi.

The above Medical Certificate is not free from

reasonable doubts. First of all it is not known as to

under what circumstances the above Medical

Certificate was issued by the Medical Officer,

particularly when the Medical Officer has earlier

issued the Medical Certificate/opinion when the

Complainant was taken for medical examination

on 26-06-2012. Admittedly, there is nothing on

record to indicate that the Valpoi Police had

requested the Medical Officer to issue second

Medical Certificate/opinion. In this so called

second Medical Certificate, it is stated by the

Medical Officer in a casual manner that the

Complainant was under the influence of alcohol

which is conspicuously missing in the first Medical

Certificate. It is not known as to on what basis the

Medical Officer has stated that the Complainant

was under the influence of alcohol. Admittedly, the

Medical Officer did not subject the Complainant

for blood test to ascertain the contents of alcohol

in his blood. The Medical Officer has also not

stated that the Complainant was aggressive and

was not co-operative. A mere observation that the

Complainant was under the influence of alcohol is

not sufficient to come to positive conclusion that

the Complainant was under the influence of

alcohol. It appears to our mind that this so called

second Medical Certificate has been introduced

by the Respondents as a clear case of afterthought

to cover up the illegalities committed by the Shri

Dattaguru Sawant/Respondent No. 4.

14. The next and last contention of the Learned

Advocate Shri G. D. Kirtani is that the Complainant

tried to create law and order situation and hence,

the Complainant was arrested to prevent any

untoward incident giving rise to cognizable

offences. This contention also has no legs to stand.

Admittedly, the Police invoked Section 151 of

Criminal Procedure Code to place the Complainant

under arrest. The Respondent No. 4 in his reply at

para-4 has stated that the Complainant was trying

to provoke general public peace. In para-5 of the

reply the Respondent No. 4 has stated that in order

to avoid any commission of cognizable offence and

to avoid any breach of law and other situation, the

Complainant was taken into custody u/s 151 of Cr.

P. C. The question for determination is whether in

the facts and circumstances of this case, the police

were justified in arresting the Complainant by

taking shelter u/s 151 of Criminal Procedure Code.

We are unable to digest the contention that the

Police has no option but to invoke the provisions of

Section 151 of Cr. P. C. to prevent commission of

cognizable offences. The reasons spelt out for

arresting the Complainant by invoking Section 151

of Cr. P. C. are against the mandate of law.

Admittedly, the incident had taken place at the

Police Station. There is nothing on record even to

suggest that the Complainant was capable of

committing any congnizable offences or was in a

position to create law and order problem. It is

settled law that if it is possible to prevent

commission of cognizable offence by any other

method without arresting the proposed offender,

any such arrest has to be construed as illegal arrest.

It is also settled law that Police cannot arrest any

person on the ground that such person is likely to

commit breach of peace or disturb public

tranquility.

15. Chapter XI of the Criminal Procedure Code

deals with Preventive Action by the Police.

Section 149 of Cr. P. C. provides that every Police

Officer may interpose for the purpose of preventing

and shall to the best of his ability, prevent the

commission of any cognizable offence.

Section 150 of Cr. P. C. lays down that every

Police Officer receiving information of a design to

commit any cognizable offence shall communicate

such information to the Police Officer to whom he

is subordinate, and to any other officer whose duty

it is to prevent or take congnizance of the

commission of any offence.

Section 151(1) provides that Police Officer

knowing of a design to commit any cognizable

offence may arrest, without orders from a

Magistrate and without a warrant the person so

designing if it appears to such officer that

commission of the offence cannot be otherwise

prevented.

Section 151(2).........

16. It is apparent from the records of this case

that the Police have not fulfilled the requirement

of Section 149 and 150 of Cr. P. C. There is nothing

on record to show that the Police have received

any information relating to cognizable offence by

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

16TH FEBRUARY, 2017

1039

the Complainant. Now even assuming that the

Respondent No. 4 had received such information

no such information or design to commit any

cognizable offence was communicated by the

Respondent No. 4 to his superiors. Thus it is

apparent that the Valpoi Police have arbitrarily

invoked the provisions of Section 151 of Cr. P. C. by

misusing their powers. The arrest of the

Complainant therefore is not at all justified.

17. On the basis of the records of this case we

are satisfied that the Complainant was illegally

detained and was assaulted by the Respondent

No. 4. The conduct of Respondent No. 4/Shri

Dattaguru Sawant is a clear infrigement of the

Fundamental Right of the Complainant as

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India and also amounts to violation of his basic

human rights.

18. In the case of Joginder Kumar v/s State

reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 260, the

Apex Court considered the dynamics of misuse of

police power of arrest and opined as follows:

“No arrest can be made because it is lawful for

the Police Officer to do so. The existence of the

power of arrest is one thing. The justification

for the exercise of it is quiet another ... No

arrest should be made without a reasonable

satisfaction reached after some investigation

about the genuineness and bonafides of a

complaint and a reasonable belief both as to

person’s complicity and even so as to the need

to effect arrest. Denying a person his liberty is

a serious matter.”

19. In the case of D.K. Basu v/s State of Bengal

reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 610, the Apex

Court has observed as follows:

“Fundamental rights occupy a place of pride

in the Indian Constitution. Article-21 provides

“No person shall be deprived of his life or

personal liberty except according to procedure

established by law” Personal liberty, thus is a

secrete and cherished right under the

Constitution. The expression “life or personal

liberty” has been held to include the right to

live with human dignity and thus it would

also include within itself a guarantee against

torture and assault by the State or its

functionaries.

20. Section 18. Steps during and after inquiry.—

The Commission may take any of the following

steps during or upon the completion of an inquiry

held under this Act, namely:-

(a) where the inquiry discloses the

commission of violation of human rights or

negligence in the prevention of violation of

human rights or abetment thereof by a public

servant, if may recommend to the concerned

Government or Authority-

(i) to make payment of compensation or

damages to the Complainant or to the victim

or the members of his family as the

Commission may consider necessary.

21. The facts of this case reveal that the

Complainant had to suffer mental torture as well as

physical discomfort on account of high handedness

of the Police who have apparently misused their

powers by curtailing the liberty of the Complainant

without any justification. We are therefore satisfied

that this is a fit case to award appropriate monetary

compensation to the Complainant by the State

Government.

22. In the case of D. K. Basu v/s State of Bengal

(Supra), it has been observed as follows:

“it is well accepted proposition in most of the

jurisdiction, that monetary or pecuniary

compensation is an appropriate and indeed

an effective and sometimes perhaps the only

suitable remedy for redressal of the

established infringement of the fundamental

right to life of a citizen by a public servant

and the State is vicariously liable for their

acts.

In the facts and the circumstances of this case,

we make the following recommendation.

(i) The State of Goa through its Chief

Secretary shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/-

(Rupees five thousand only) to the Complainant

as compensation within a period of 30 days. It

shall be open to the State Government to recover

the amount of compensation from the erring

Police Officials.

Date: 23-08-2016.

Place: Panaji-Goa.

Sd/-

A. D. Salkar

J. A. Keny

Chairperson

Member

Goa Human Rights

Commission

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

16TH FEBRUARY, 2017

1040

No. 1/70/2012/HD(G)/GHRC/3452

Before the Human Rights Commission

at Panaji-Goa

Proceeding No. 23/2012

Sub.:- Inquiry Report in Proceeding No. 23/2012.

Reply on behalf of the Chief Secretary/Home

Secretary State of Goa.

(Respondent No. 1)

May it please your Honour

In view of the directions given by the Hon’ble

Commission on 23-8-2016 in the above mentioned

matter, I the Joint Secretary (Home), State of

Goa would like to place the following before the

Hon’ble Commission.

A report was sought from Director General of

Police, Panaji. In this regard it is informed by the

Superintendent of Police (L & V) that letter vide No.

PHQ/PET-CELL/VAL-07/16/1519/2016 dated

27-10-2016 is sent to Shri Vincent Miguel Fernandes

@ Vincent Miguel Fernandes Lourdes Fernandes

r/o H. No. 362, Valpoi, Sattari Goa to collect the

Demand Draft vide No. 958892 of Rs. 5000/- from the

O/o S. P. (L. & V), during office hours.

The same may be kindly noted.

Date: 1-11-2016.

Srinet Kothwale,

Place: Porvorim-Goa

Joint Secretary (Home).

________

Proceeding No. 251/2013

Inquiry Report

The present complaint has been filed by the

Complainant alleging that he was illegally arrested

by Porvorim Police Station and thereby violating

his basic human rights.

2. The Complainant is RTI Activist. On

01-04-2013 the Complainant filed an application

under Right to Information Act before State Public

Information Officer, Miss Vasanti Parvatkar who was

functioning as Under Secretary (Law) at the

relevant time. The said Public Information Officer

was avoiding to give information to the

Complainant on one or the other pretext. It is the

case of the Complainant that in order to cover up

her failure to provide information in time and to

take revenge on the Complainant who had

complained to the Chief Secretary against her

(Miss Vasanti Parvatkar), she filed a false complaint

to the Police. The Complainant has further stated

that in pursuance to the said complaint filed by

Miss Vasanti Parvatkar notice was issued to the

Complainant on 26-10-2013 by invoking provisions

of Section 41(A) of Criminal Procedure Code by

Police Inspector Shri Shivram Vaigankar requiring

him to remain present at Porvorim Police Station on

28-10-2013 in respect of crime registered under

No. 150/2013 for offences u/s 509, 323, 586 and 380

of IPC. The said notice was forcibly handed over to

the wife of the Complainant on 27-10-2013 at 16.25

hrs., when the Complainant was out of station at

New Delhi. On 28-10-2013 at about 11.00 a.m., the

wife of the Complainant approached Police

Inspector Shri Shivram Vaigankar and inwarded a

letter stating that the Complainant was out of

station and would present himself before the Police

on 30-10-2013. Accordingly, on 30-10-2013, the

Complainant appeared before the Porvorim Police

and presented himself before the Police Inspector

Shri Shivram Vaigankar and also inwarded a letter

dated 30-10-2013 which was received by Police

Inspector himself and was signed and endorsed

by the Police Inspector. It is further stated that on

30-10-2013, the Complainant was not interrogated

and as such the Complainant returned home for

lunch. It is further stated that around 4.30 p.m. a

Police Team was sent to the house of the

Complainant by the Police Inspector of Porvorim

Police Station and the Complainant was arrested

without any warrant or order from the Magistrate

which was mandatory as per Section 41A of Cr. PC.

3. Taking cognizance of the complaint filed by

the Complainant, this Commission issued notices

to Shri Vilesh Durbhatkar, Police Sub-Inspector,

Porvorim

Police

Station,

Porvorim-Goa,

2) Shri Shivram Vaigankar, Police Inspector, Porvorim

Police Station, Porvorim-Goa 3) Smt. Priyanka

Kashyap, Superintendent of Police (North), Porvorim

Police Station, Porvorim-Goa 4) Miss Vasanti

Parvatkar, Under Secretary (Law), Secretariat,

Porvorim-Goa and 5) the Secretary (Law),

Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa. In pursuance to the

notices, the Respondent No. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have filed

separate replies. The Respondent No. 3 has adopted.

the reply filed by Respondent No. 2. The

Complainant has filed his Affidavit-in-Evidence.

The Respondent No. 1 and 2 also have filed their

Counter Affidavits.

4. The Respondents have denied the allegations

made against them by the Complainant. The

Respondent No.1 in his reply has stated that on

account of non-co-operation of the Complainant,

the Incharge of the Police Station directed the

Respondent No.1 to proceed to the house of the

Complainant and arrest him (Complainant). It is the

case of the Respondent No. 2 that one Miss Vasanti

Parvatkar filed a complaint on 25-10-2013 alleging

that Mr. Sudip Tamankar has committed offences

punishable u/s 509, 353, 186 and 380 of IPC.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

16TH FEBRUARY, 2017

1041

Accordingly, offences vide Crime No. 150/2013 u/s

509, 353, 186 and 380 of IPC were registered and

further investigation was taken up by Respondent

No. 1. During the course of investigation, the

Respondent No. 1 went to the residence of Sudip

Tamankar at Ribandar in search of him but he was

not found at his residence. This Respondent has

admitted that on 28-10-2013, the wife of the

Complainant came at Porvorim Police Station and

gave a letter to the Police Inspector, Porvorim Police

Station stating that her husband went out of station

and was unable to remain present at Porvorim Police

Station and that he will remain present on

30-10-2013. This Respondent has denied that the

Complainant had visited the Police Station along

with his three friends on 30-10-2013. It is stated

that by this Respondent that on account of

seriousness of the allegations, etc. and on account

of non-co-operation of the Complainant, the

Respondent No.1 left the Police Station to arrest

the Complainant on 30-10-2013 at 3.30 p.m. and on

the same day at 5.30 p.m. the Respondent No.1

returned to the Police Station along with the

Complainant/Mr. Sudip Tamankar and the

Complainant was arrested on the ground that

recovery of the stolen Government papers was

essential.

5. We have heard the Learned Advocate

Shri Yatish Naik for the Complainant and the

Learned Advocate Shri V. Sardessai for the

Respondents. We have also perused the records of

this case. Learned Advocate Shri Yatish Naik invited

our attention to Section 41A of Cr.P.C. and

contended that the arrest of the Complainant was

not justified and the same is illegal. In support of

this contention, Shri Yatish Naik has placed a

reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in

the case of Dr. Rini Johar & Anr., Petitioners v/s

State of M.P. & Ors., Respondents, in Writ Petition

(Criminal) No. 30 of 2015. On the contrary, the

Learned Advocate Shri V. Sardessai contended that

the notice was issued to the Complainant to

produce documents. This contention is not borne

out of records. The notice u/s 41A does not make

any reference to the documents. The said notice

indicates that the Complainant was directed to

appear at the Police Station in connection with

P. S. Crime No.150/2013 u/s 509, 353, 186 and 380 of

IPC.

6. Admittedly, the Police Inspector, Porvorim

Police Station had issued a notice dated 26-10-2013

u/s 41A of Cr.P.C. directing the Complainant/Shri

Sudip Tamankar to remain present at Porvorim

Police Station on 28-10-2013 at 11.00 a.m. Records

indicate that the wife of the Complainant Smt.

Shradha Tamankar by letter dated 28-10-2013

informed the Police Inspector, Porvorim Police

Station that her husband was out of station and

also informed the Police that her husband will be

available on 30-10-2013. The records further

indicate that the Complainant had addressed a

letter dated 30-10-2013 to the Police Inspector,

Porvorim Police Station stating therein among other

things that he will present himself before the Police

as and when required. It is the case of the

Respondent No. 2/Police Inspector, Porvorim Police

Station that the Complainant did not appear before

the Police on 30-10-2013 and in view of seriousness

the

allegations

and

account

non-co-operation, the Complainant was arrested by

Respondent No. 1.

7. The crucial question for our determination is

whether the Respondent No. 1 and 2 were justified

in arresting the Cormplainant in the facts and the

circumstances of this case.

At this stage it would be convenient to refer to

Section 41A of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:

41-A. Notice of appearance before police

officer.—(1) The police officer shall, in all cases

where the arrest of a person is not required under

the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41,

issue a notice directing the person against whom

a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible

information has been received, or a reasonable

suspicion exists that he has committed a

cognizable offence, to appear before him or at

such other place as may be specified in the notice.

(2) Where such notice is issued to any person,

it shall be the duty of that person to comply with

the terms office notice.

(3) Where such person complies and continues

to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested

in respect of the offence referred to in the notice

unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police

officers is of the opinion that he ought to be

arrested.

(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to

comply with the terms of the notice is unwilling

to identify himself, a police officer may, subject to

such orders as may have been passed by a

competent court in this behalf, arrest him for the

offence mentioned in the notice.

8. According to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 the

Complainant did not comply with the terms of

notice u/s 41A of Cr.P.C. in as much as the

Complainant did not remain present before the

Police on 30-10-2013. We are not inclined to accept

this contention of the Respondent No. 1 and 2. The

records indicate that the Complainant expressed

his willingness to appear before the Police as

and when required by communication dated

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

16TH FEBRUARY, 2017

1042

30-10-2013. The Complainant also assured his full

co-operation in the matter of investigation. Inspite

of this position, the Respondent No.1 and 2 arrested

the Complainant without following the mandate of

the provisions of Section 41A, 41A(3). Admittedly,

the Respondent No.1 who has arrested the

Complainant has not recorded any reasons for

arresting the Complainant as required u/s 41A(3) of

Cr.P.C. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 have thus

committed procedural lapses. They should have

been more careful in arresting the Complainant as

Section 41A was invoked by the Police. The

aforesaid act of Respondent No.1 and 2 amounts to

violation of human rights of the Complainant.

In the facts and the circumstances of this case,

we make the following recommendations:

i) The Director General of Police shall censure

the conduct of the Respondent No.1 and 2

and shall issue warning in writing to the

Respondent No. 1 and 2 to be careful in future

and to follow the provisions of Section 41A of

Cr. P.C. meticulously.

(ii) The Director General of Police, Panaji-Goa

shall issue instructions to all the Police

Stations in the State of Goa to comply with

the provisions of Section 41 and Section 41A

of Cr.P.C. in letter and spirit.

A copy of this Inquiry Report shall be forwarded

to the Director General of Police, Panaji-Goa for

strict compliance.

Date: 17-08-2016.

Place: Panaji.

Sd/-

A. D. Salkar

J. A. Keny

Chairperson

Member

Goa Human Rights

Commission

________

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

16TH FEBRUARY, 2017

1048

———‹‹‹———

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

Notification by the High Court of Judicature

Appellate Side, Bombay

No. A. 1201/G/2017/451

Shri P. V. Sawaikar, District Judge-1 & Additional

Sessions Judge, Mapusa, Panaji District, shall stand

retired from Goa State Judicial Service w.e.f.

06-03-2017 (A.O.H.) by superannuation on attaining

the age of 60 years.

High Court, Bombay.

Mangesh S. Patil,

Dated: 1st February, 2017.

Registrar General

———‹‹‹———

Department of Official Language and

Public Grievances

Directorate of Official Language

Order

No. 4/3/DOL/RTI-2012(III)/138

In pursuance of clause 5 of the Right to

Information Act, 2005, the following officers are

hereby appointed as Public Information Officer and

Assistant Public Information Officer for the

Directorate of Official Language.

Sr.

Designation

Officers designated under

No.

Right to Information

Act, 2005

1. Shri Anil H. Sawant,

Public Information

Assistant Director

Officer.

(Konkani/Marathi)

Head of office

2. Smt. Nepha F. e Silveira,

Assistant Public

Junior Stenographer

Information Officer.

3. Shri Patrik D’Souza,

Assistant Public

Upper Division Clerk

Information Officer.

4. Kum. Sneha S. Sabnis,

Assistant Public

Junior Translator Konkani

Information Officer.

5. Shri Parag D. Parsekar,

Assistant Public

Junior Translator Marathi

Information Officer.

The Public Information Officer shall be

responsible for the preparation and publication of

the manuals and updating the manuals from time

to time as per the said Act.

The Assistant Public Information Officer shall

ensure that the applications received by him/her

for information under the Right to Information Act,

2005 are submitted on top priority to the Public

Information Officer so as to furnish the information

to the applicant within the provisions of the Act.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

16TH FEBRUARY, 2017

1049

The Director of Official Language will be the

First Appellate Authority in pursuance of Clause

19 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

This supersedes the earlier Order No. 4/3/DOL/

/RTI-2012(III)/352 dated 12-07-2016 published in

Official Gazette Series II No. 16 dated 21-07-2016.

Dr. Prakash Vazrikar, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Official Language).

Panaji, 13th February, 2017.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Personnel

Order

No. 6/9/2009-PER (Part IV)A/277

Read: Notification No. 3/1/2012-PER dated 16-08-2016

published in Official Gazette No. 20 Series I

dated 18-08-2016.

The salary adjustments of the following senior

scale officers posted below at column No. 3 shall

be adjusted against Leave & Training Reserve

notified vide preamble (1):

S/N

Name of the officer

Posted as

1. Shri Menino D’Souza

Commissioner of Excise.

2. Shri Dipak Bandekar

Commissioner of Commer-

cial Taxes.

3. Shri Ashok Rane

Director of Industries,

Trade & Commerce.

4. Shri Sanjeev Dessai

Director of Tourism.

Meghana Shetgaonkar, Under Secretary

(Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 30th January, 2017.

________

Order

No. 7/47/2014-PER/314

Read: Order No. 7/30/2014-PER dated 05-01-2017.

The salaries of the following IAS Officers are to be adjusted against the following posts as mentioned

below:-

Sr.

Name of the Officer

Salary to be drawn from

Salary from February 2017 onwards

No.

date of joining till 31-01-2017

1. Shri Dharmendra Singh, IAS

Principal Secretary to Government

Chief Secretary.

2. Dr. Ranbir Singh, IAS

Training Reserve

Principal Secretary to Government.

3. Smt. Padmini Singla, IAS

State Deputation Reserve

State Deputation Reserve.

4. Shri Sanjay Goel, IAS

Resident Commissioner

Resident Commissioner.

5. Shri Rupesh K. Thakur, IAS

Director (Education)

Secretary to Governor.

6. Shri J. Ashok Kumar, IAS

State Deputation Reserve

State Deputation Reserve.

7. Smt. Maneka, IAS

Secretary (Finance)

Secretary (Finance).

Meghana V. Shetgaonkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 8th February, 2017.

________

Notification

No. 15/7/2003-PER

In accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post of Mamlatdar/Joint Mamlatdar/Asstt. Director

of Civil Supplies, notified vide Notification No. 1/25/87-PER dated 17-4-1996 published in the Official

Gazette, Series I No. 9 dated 31-5-1996 and in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the Goa

Departmental Examination for the Officers in the Cadre of Mamlatdars/Joint Mamlatdars/Asstt. Director

of Civil Supplies Rules, 1997, notified under Notification No. 15/50/87-PER-Part I dated 12-12-1997 and

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

16TH FEBRUARY, 2017

1050

published in the Official Gazette, Series I No. 44 dated 29-1-1998, the schedule for the Departmental

Examination shall be as under:

Date of

Morning Session

Evening Session

Venue

examination

10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.

2.00 p.m to 5.00 p.m.

27-04-2017

Paper (I)

Paper (VI)

The Goa Public Service

Commission, Panaji-Goa.

The syllabus for the said examination shall be in accordance with the Goa Departmental Examination

for the Officers in the Cadre of Mamlatdar/Joint Mamlatdar/Asstt. Director of Civil Supplies (First

Amendment) Rules, 2011 notified under Notification No. 15/7/2003-PER dated 17-02-2011 and published

in the Official Gazette, Series I No. 49 dated 03-03-2011.

The following Officers in the above Cadre shall appear for the Examination in papers mentioned

against their names on the above mentioned date, time and venue. They may bring the text books of

the Act and Rules prescribed for the examination.

Sr.

Name of the Officers

Papers

No.

Shri Mandar Mohan Naik

Shri Ramesh Narayan Gaonkar

Smt. Sharmila Ulhas Gaunkar

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Meghana V. Shetgaonkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 13th February, 2017.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 16.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–344/350–2/2017.