Panaji, 19th April, 2018 (Chaitra 29, 1940)

SERIES II No. 3

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services

Order

No. 2/13/95-AH/PF/2018-19/157

Upon approval of the Government following Deputy Directors are given designation alongwith the

Budget Head to draw their salary from date of their joining as follows:

Sr.

Name & designation

Budget Head

Date of joining

No.

Dr. Rajaram N. Naik,

2404—Dairy Development; 00—; 102—Dairy Development

19-03-2018 (b.n.).

Dy. Director (Farms)

Projects; 08—Special Livestock Breeding Programme

(Plan); 01—Salaries

Dr. Rajendra H. Prabhu 2403—Animal Husbandry; 00—; 101—Veterinary

20-03-2018 (b.n.).

Gaonkar, Dy. Director

Service and Animal Health; 01—Rinderpest

(Epidemiology)

Eradication (Plan) (A); 01—Salaries

Dr. Gustavo J. F. do

2403—Animal Husbandry; 00—; 001—Direction Adminis- 19-03-2018 (a.n.).

R. Pinto, Dy. Director

tration; 01—Direction (Non-Plan); 01—Salaries

Gynaecology

Dr. Greta Costa,

2404—Dairy Development; 00—; 102—Dairy Development 19-03-2018 (b.n.).

Dy. Director (SLBP)

Projects; 08—Special Livestock Breeding Programme

(Plan); 01—Salaries

Dr. D. M. Naik Parrikar, who is currently Dy. Director (Plan), be transferred to post of Deputy Director

(Farms) w.e.f. 01-04-2018 and consequently Dr. Rajaram N. Naik, be posted as Dy. Director (Plan).

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

Dr. Santosh V. Desai, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (AH).

Panaji, 10th April, 2018.

________

Order

No. 10/88/14-AH/2018-19/163

Sanction of the Government is hereby accorded for accepting the notice of resignation, given by

Dr. Rameela Maria P. Menezes, Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Dispensary, Shiroda vide her letter dated

31-01-2018.

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

Note:-

There are two Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 2 dated 12-04-2018 as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 17-04-2018 from pages 43 to 44 regarding Orders from Department of Elections.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 18-04-2018 from pages 45 to 46 regarding Order from Department of Elections.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 3

19TH APRIL, 2018

Dr. Rameela Maria P. Menezes, Veterinary Officer shall stand relieved from Government service with

immediate effect.

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

Dr. Santosh V. Desai, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (AH).

Panaji, 10th April, 2018.

________

Order

No. 2/2/79-AH (Part)/2018-19/209

Government is pleased to order the transfer of the following Officers in the Directorate of Animal

Husbandry & Veterinary Services, with immediate effect and in public interest to the place of posting

as indicated against their names:

Sr.

Name with

Present place of posting

Proposed place of posting

No.

designatiion

Dr. Marwin Lopes,

Veterinary Hospital, Mapusa

Veterinary Hospital, Tonca, with additional

Assistant Director

charge of Veterinary Hospital, Mapusa &

D.I.U., Tonca thereby relieving Dr. Gustavo

Pinto of additional charge.

Dr. Satyavan B. Naik,

Veterinary Dispensary, Quepem

Veterinary Hospital, Sonsodo thereby reliev-

Veterinary Officer

ing Dr. R. H. Prabhugaonkar of additional

charge.

Dr. Manik Patil, Veterinary Officer, Mobile Veterinary Clinic, Quepem shall hold charge of Veterinary

Dispensary, Quepem in addition to her own duties.

The Officers shall be entitled for transfer TA/DA as per rule.

The Officers shall join their new place of posting with immediate effect.

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

Dr. Santosh V. Desai, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (AH).

Panaji, 11th April, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Higher Education

Notification

No. 7/32/91-EDN/MISC/535/193

Read: Notification No. 7/3191-EDN/MISC/535/

/2894 dated 14-12-2017.

The Government has constituted College

Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred under

Statute 95 A of the Goa University Statutes and in

consultation with the Goa University, and Shri

Desmond D’Costa, Retired Judge, District Judge is

appointed as Presiding Officer for a period of five

years for the whole State of Goa for the purpose of

the said Statute vide Notification No. 7/32/91-EDN/

MISC/535/2620 dated 23-11-2017.

Now, Government has decided that the

grievances of employees of aided and un-aided

private recognized educational institutions shall

also be heard by the said College Tribunal (as

contemplated in the Judgement of TMA Pai

Foundation case).

This issues with approval of Chief Justice of

Hon. High Court of Bombay, as conveyed by

Registrar (Administration), High Court of Bombay

at Goa, vide letter No. HCB/Goa/REG./83/2018 dated

23-03-2018, permitting allotment of grievances of

the employees of aided and unaided private

recognized education institutions in Goa, to the

College Tribunal, Goa in accordance with the

directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court given in

the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of

Karnataka.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 3

19TH APRIL, 2018

The Notification shall come into force with effect

from the date of its publication in the Official

Gazette.

This issues in supersession of Notification

No. 7/32/91-EDN/MISC/535/2894 dated 14-12-2017.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Diwan N. Rane, Under Secretary (Higher

Education).

Porvorim, 13th April, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Elections

Goa State Election Commission

Order

No. 4/15/EMC/PS/2017-SEC/354

Sub.: Appointment of General Observer for Election

to Sanquelim Municipal Council.

Ref.:

Order No. 4/15/EMC/PS/2017-SEC/324 dated

09-04-2018.

With reference to the above cited subject, the

Order of Smt. Sneha Morajkar, Director of Official

Language, who was posted as General Observer

for Sanquelim Municipal Council stands cancelled.

R. K. Srivastava, IAS (Retd.), Commissioner

(Goa State Election Commission).

Panaji, 12th April, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Finance

Directorate of Accounts

Order

No. DA/Admn/19-40/2018-19/TR-67/27

Read: Office Order No. 643 No. DA/Admn/19-40/

/2016-17/TR-1394/1093 dated 10-10-2016.

In exercise of the powers conferred under

Section 5, sub-rule (1) and (2) of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as ‘the

said Act’), and in partial modification of order cited

above, the following officers of this Directorate are

appointed as Public Information Officer and

Assistant Public Information Officer with the area

of operation indicated against each to deal with

the applications received from the Public under

the above said Act.

1. Shri Kishore D.

Public Information

North

Kothambikar,

Officer, Directorate

Goa

Dy. Director

of Accounts,

District.

of Accounts,

Panaji-Goa

Directorate of

Accounts,

Panaji-Goa

2. Shri Dilip N.

Assistant Public

North

Kaskar, Dy.

Information Officer,

Goa

Director of

Directorate of

District.

Accounts,

Directorate

Panaji-Goa

of Accounts,

Panaji-Goa

The designated officers shall exercise and

perform the powers/functions as laid down under

the Right to Information Act, 2005 with immediate

effect.

P. R. Pereira, Director of Accounts.

Panaji, 5th April, 2018.

________

Order

No. DA/Admn/45-1/2017-18/121/TR-3201

On the recommendation of the D.P.C. as conveyed

by the Goa Public Service Commission vide

their letter No. COM/II/11/1/(1)/2017/1063 dated

12-02-2018, Government is pleased to promote the

following Dy. Director of Accounts/Accounts

Officer under the Common Accounts Cadre of the

Directorate of Accounts to the post of Joint Director

of Accounts (Group “A”, Gazetted) in level 11 of the

Pay Matrix (i.e. Pay Band PB-3 Rs. 15,600-39,100

Grade Pay Rs. 6,600/- pre-revised) on regular basis

with effect from the date of taking over charge of

the post.

Sr.

Name of the Officers

No.

Shri Anand Salgaocar (PH).

Shri Laxman Gaude (ST).

Shri Santosh Y. Khedekar (ST).

Shri Satyawan Talwadkar (ST).

Shri Tukaram Jalmi (ST).

Shri Perves Gomes.

Shri Shaikh Kassim.

Smt. Aruna Phadte.

Shri Prabhakar Tari.

10.

Shri Suresh Divkar.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 3

19TH APRIL, 2018

Government is further pleased to order the posting of the following Joint Director of Accounts under

the Common Accounts Cadre in the Departments shown against their names:-

Sr.

Name of the Officer

Place of posting on promotion on regular basis

No.

Shri Anand Salgaocar (PH)

Goa Human Resource Development Corporation, Porvorim-Goa

(on deputation).

Shri Laxman Gaude (ST)

National Rural Health Mission (DHS), Panaji-Goa (on deputation)

with additional charge in the Directorate of Small Savings and

Lotteries, Altinho, Panaji-Goa.

Shri Santosh Y. Khedekar (ST)

Institute of Public Assistance (IPA), Provedoria, Panaji-Goa

(on deputation).

Shri Satyawan Talwadkar (ST)

Sports Authority of Goa, Bambolim-Goa (on deputation).

Shri Tukaram Jalmi (ST)

Goa Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Society, Porvorim-Goa (on deputation)

thereby relieving Shri Anand Salgaocar, Joint Director of Accounts

of his additional charge.

Shri Perves Gomes

Goa Industrial Development Corporation, Panaji-Goa (on deputation)

thereby relieving Shri Satyawan Talwadkar, Joint Director of

Accounts of additional charge.

Shri Shaikh Kassim

Directorate of Education, Porvorim-Goa.

Smt. Aruna Phadte

Goa Handicrafts Rural Small Scale Industries Development

Corporation, Panaji-Goa (on deputation).

Shri Prabhakar Tari

Directorate of Health Services, Panaji-Goa.

10.

Shri Suresh Diukar

Directorate of Higher Education, Porvorim-Goa.

Further, the Government is also pleased to order the transfer of the following Joint Director of

Accounts under the Common Accounts Cadre in the Department as shown against their names in public

interest:-

Sr.

Name of the officer

Present place of posting

Proposed place of posting

No.

11. Shri Mahadev Morajkar

Directorate of Health Services with

District Rural Development Agency,

additional charge of NRHM,

(North), Panaji-Goa (on deputation),

Panaji-Goa

thereby relieving Shri Santosh

Khedekar, Jt. Director of Accounts

of the additional charge.

The above promoted officers may exercise an option for fixation of pay under F.R. 22(1)(a)(i) within one

month from the date of promotion.

The posting of officers at Sr. Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8 and 11 will be on deputation basis initially for a period of

one year and the officers at Sr. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 will continue on deputation till the expiry of their

deputation period as per the earlier deputation orders issued by this Directorate. They shall be governed

as per the standard terms of deputation contained in the O.M. No. 13/4/74-PER dated 20-11-2013 of the

Personnel Department, Government of Goa. The Organization/Agency shall be liable to pay to the

Government leave salary and pension contribution in respect of these officers at the prescribed rates.

On expiry of the deputation period, the officers shall necessarily be relieved to report back to the parent

Department, unless the deputation period is extended by the competent authority. In the event the

officers overstay for any reason whatsoever, they will be liable for disciplinary action and other adverse

civil/service consequences.

On joining their promotional/new post, the officers shall send their CTC/Joining reports immediately

to this Directorate.

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

P. R. Pereira, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Accounts).

Panaji, 31st March, 2018.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 3

19TH APRIL, 2018

Goa Human Rights Commission

Proceeding No. 15/2011

Inquiry Report

This is a complaint filed by the Complainants

alleging that the Mapusa Police have arrested the

Complainants on the basis of false and fabricated

complaints and further subjected the Complainants

to inhuman brutalities in violation of guidelines of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this complaint

are as follows:

On 19th February, 2011, one Miss Vinita filed a

complaint with the Police to the effect that she left

the house of Complainant No. 2 in June, 2010

alleging that the Complainant No. 2 demanded

dowry from her. On 21-03-2011, P. I., Shri Rajesh

Kumar registered an offence against the

Complainants u/s 498A of IPC and came to arrest

the Complainants on 26-03-2011 at 7.00 p.m. by

violating the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

3. It is alleged that the Policemen who came to

arrest the Complainants in the house of the

Complainants were not in uniform and only two

constables were in uniform. The jeep driver along-

with one PSI and other person trespassed in the

house of the Complainants and the said Jeep driver

assaulted the Complainant No. 2 with sharp knife

on his left hand arm and when the Complainant

No. 1 came in the Living Room, the said driver

slapped the Complainant No. 1 and pushed her on

the wall. After the arrest the Complainants were

subjected to brutality. It is further alleged that the

Complainant No. 2 called 108 ambulance on phone

and when the Complainant No. 2 came out of his

house for immediate medical treatment, the

policemen did not allow the Complainant No. 2 to

go to the 108 ambulance and picked up

Complainant No. 2 and threw him in the Police

Jeep and later three policemen forcibly lifted the

Complainant No. 1 from the house and threw her

too in the Police Jeep and brought the

Complainants to the Police Station. It is also alleged

that one person by name Mr. Nitin Halarnkar

committed robbery in the house of the Complainants

to the tune of Rs. 60,000/-.

4. The Police Inspector, Shri Rajesh Kumar came

to the Police Station and ordered the Staff to beat

the Complainant No. 2 and as per the Orders of P.I.,

Rajesh Kumar, his staff assaulted the Complainant

No. 2 with slaps and punches and later the Police

Inspector, Shri Rajesh Kumar also assaulted him

with belt. It is further stated that thereafter P. I.,

Rajesh Kumar directed his staff to put handcuffs to

his hands while taking him to IPHB Hospital,

Bambolim and accordingly, his staff put handcuffs

to his hands while taking him to Bambolim.

5. It is further alleged that the Doctor of Asilo

Hospital referred him to IPHB Hospital at 8.00 p.m.

But the Police Jeep reached Bambolim Hospital at

1.00 a.m. after five hours. He was medically checked

up at IPHB Hospital at Bambolim at about 1.00 a.m.

and many injuries were found on his body at

Bambolim Hospital which were missing earlier at

Asilo Hospital, Mapusa at 8.00 p.m. While

discharging him, the IPHB Doctor at 1.45 a.m. of

27-03-2011 advised the policemen to take him back

to Asilo Hospital for admission. During the return

journey the policemen forcibly poured beer in his

mouth and gave him bad words. The policemen

also did not remove the handcuffs from his hands.

At about 2.30 a.m. the Police Jeep reached back to

Asilo Hospital, however the Casualty Section at

the Asilo Hospital was closed. The Policemen

decided to take him to GMC Hospital to Bambolim

and took the Jeep towards Panaji and when the

Jeep reached at Hotel Green Park Junction at

Guirim, Bardez-Goa, the policemen changed their

mind and took him to the Police Station at Mapusa

and illegally and without any authority put him in

the Jail at about 3.00 a.m. of 27-03-2011 and he was

released on the same day in the evening on bail by

order of JMFC, Mapusa.

6. This Commission issued notices to 1) the State

of Goa though the Chief Secretary, Secretariat,

Porvorim-Goa, 2) the Secretary (Home), Home

Department, Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa, 3) the

Director General of Police, Panaji-Goa, 4) the

Superintendent of Police (North), Porvorim-Goa and

5) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Police Inspector, Mapusa

Police Station, Mapusa-Goa. The Respondents

Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have filed separate replies. The

Respondent No. 1 and 2 have adopted the reply

filed by the Respondent No. 3.

7. The case of the Respondents in brief is as

follows:

On 21-03-2011, an offence vide Cr. No. 109/2011

u/s 498A of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC was

registered at Mapusa Police Station against the

Complainant No. 2 and others upon the complaint

of Smt. Vinita alias Riya, wife of Raya Karapurkar

to the effect that from 21-03-2010 to 19-02-2011

Shri Raya Karapurkar, Smt. Sushma Karapurkar and

Shri Madhu Holkar with the common intention

subjected the said Smt. Vinita alias Riya Karapurkar

to harassment and cruelty for failing to fulfil their

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 3

19TH APRIL, 2018

demands of dowry. On 26-03-2011, the Staff of

Mapusa Police Station visited the residence of

Shri Raya Karapurkar for investigation and at that

time Shri Raya Karapurkar and his mother

Smt. Sushma Karapurkar (the Complainants herein)

abused and assaulted the Police Personnel while

discharging their lawful duties and accordingly

an offence vide Crime No. 118/2011 u/s 504 and

353 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered

against Shri Raya Karapurkar and Smt. Sushma

Karapurkar. It is further stated that during the

course of investigation the Complainants herein

were placed under arrest on 26-03-201 at 20.00 hrs.

and were remanded to police custody for one day

and they were subsequently released by JMFC

Mapusa on 27-03-2011 at 18.00 hrs.

8. It is further the case of the Respondents that

on being aggrieved by the complaint filed by his

wife Smt. Riya Karapurkar alias Vinita Gaude, the

Complainant No. 2 started making various

complaints in form of applications to satisfy his

whims and fancies thereby trying to force the

Higher Authorities of the Department to file

criminal case against his wife and his in-laws to

create evidence against them before the Court. It

is further stated that the Complainant No. 2 is

aggrieved by the report sent by Shri Rajesh Kumar,

Police Inspector, Mapusa to the Hon’ble Court and

other authorities and as such the said Shri Raya

Karapurkar is making false allegations against the

Police Inspector, Shri Rajesh Kumar.

9. The Respondents have stated that the accused

persons (the Complainants herein) were arrested

after following the guidelines of the Supreme Court.

The Complainants were medically examined before

Medical Officer, Asilo Hospital, Mapusa on their

arrest and the intimation of the arrest was given to

Ms. Diksha Dilip Vaigankar who is the daughter of

Complainant No. 1 and that the Complainants were

produced before JMFC, Mapusa within 24 hours of

their arrest.

10. The Respondents have generally denied all

the allegations made against the Police by the

Complainant. It is stated that the action taken by

Mapusa Police Inspector is in accordance with law.

11. The Complainant No. 2 has examined himself

as CW1. The Complainant No. 1 has examined

herself as CW2. The Complainants have also

examined four more witnesses in support of their

case namely Shri Jaykissan Yadav (CW3),

Shri Sandesh V. Dicholkar (CW4), Shri Pedru D’Mello

(CW5) and Shri Prasad Sawant (CW6) and

Smt. Diksha Vaigankar. The Respondent No. 5/Police

Inspector, Shri Rajesh Kumar has examined himself

as RW1.

12. Both the Parties have filed written

submissions. Apart from written submissions, the

Advocate for the Respondents have also argued

orally. We have also perused the records of this

case.

13. The points for determination are formulated

as follows:

a) Whether the Complainant No. 1 was

arrested before or after the sunset on

26-03-2011? If the Complainant No. 1 was

arrested after the sunset, whether

exceptional circumstances existed to arrest

the Complainant No. 1 and further whether

written report was made and whether prior

permission of Judicial Magistrate First Class

within whose local jurisdiction the offence

was committed or arrest was made was

obtained?

(b) Whether the arrest of the Complainants was

justified in the facts and the circumstances

of the present case?

establish the fact as to whether the Mapusa

Police have assaulted the Complainants

during the course of arrest and during their

custody with the Police?

(d) Whether the Police were justified in

handcuffing the Complainant No. 2?

14. We shall first deal with the question as to

whether the Complainant No. 1 was arrested before

or after the sunset. It is the contention of the

Respondents that the Complainant No. 1 was

arrested before the sunset. This contention is not

borne out of records. It is the case of the

Complainants that the police inspector registered

the FIR on 21-03-2011 against the Complainants

u/s 498A of IPC and under malafide intentions came

to arrest the Complainants on 26-03-2011 in the

evening at about 7.00 p.m. by violating the

guidelines of arrest of the Supreme Court. The

Complainant No. 2 (C.W. 1) in his Affidavit-in-

-Evidence has stated that on 26-03-2011, two police

constables namely Mr. Sandeep Kambli and

Mr. Sanjay Pednekar used force on woman who is

his mother at night time at 7.00 p.m. in his house

and lifted and threw her in the Police Jeep. This

part of the evidence of CW1 has not been

challenged by the Respondents. The Complainant

No. 1 (CW2) in her Affidavit-in-Evidence has also

stated that two police constables came inside her

house and used force on her at night time at 7.00 p.m.

and lifted her, brought her near the jeep on the

road and threw her in the Police Jeep. This

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 3

19TH APRIL, 2018

witness (CW2) in her cross-examination has

categorically stated that the police came to her

residence and physically lifted her and put her in

the Police Jeep. Thus it can be seen that the

evidence of CW1 has been corroborated by

Complainant No. 1 (CW2) on the aspect of

apprehension of the Complainant No. 2 at about

7.00 p.m. on 26-03-2011. The evidence of CW1 and

CW2 has been corroborated by other witness

namely Shri Jaykissan Yadav who has been

examined as (CW3) material aspect of the case. This

witness (CW3) in his Affidavit-in-Evidence has

stated that on 26-03-2011, he was returning to his

room at about 7.00 p.m. and at that time he saw the

policemen going inside the house of the

Complainants and lifting the mother of Raya

(Complainant No. 1) and attempted to drag her

inside the jeep. In his cross-examination he has

stated that he has seen the police dragging the

mother of the Complainant No. 2 from the house of

the Complainants. The Respondent No. 5 who has

been examined as RW1, in his Affidavit-in-Evidence

has stated that the Complainant and his mother

were brought at Mapusa Police Station and PSI,

Shri Nitin Halarnkar placed them under arrest on

26-03-2011 before sunset. This witness in his cross-

-examination has stated that his statement in

para-16 of his Affidavit-in-Evidence is as per police

records. It is thus apparent that RW1 had no

personal knowledge as to whether the Complainant

No.1 was arrested before or after the sunset. The

Complainants have produce a chart showing Time/

/General/Weather Time Zone DST Change Sun and

Moon for the month of March, 2011. As per the said

chart, the timing of sunset of 26-03-2011 is 18.46

hrs. It is thus established that the Complainant

No. 1 was apprehended by the police after the

sunset. In any event, the Respondents have

admitted that the formal arrests of the

Complainants including the Complainant No. 1 who

is a lady was made at about 8.00 p.m. i.e. after the

sunset.

15. Section 46 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

prohibits arrest of a woman after the sunset and

before sunrise except in unavoidable circumstances.

The relevant portion of Section 46 of Cr.PC reads

as follows:

Section 46. Arrest how made:

(1) …

(2) …

(3) …

(4) …

(5) Save in exceptional circumstances, no woman

shall be arrested after sunset and before sunrise,

and where such exceptional circumstances exists, a

woman police officer shall, by making a written

report, obtain the prior permission of the Judicial

Magistrate of the first class within whose local

jurisdiction the offence is committed or the arrest is

to be made.

We therefore find that there is sufficient

evidence on record to indicate that the

Complainant No. 1 was arrested by the police on

26-03-2011 after the sunset.

There is nothing on record to indicate that the

exceptional circumstances existed to place the

Complainant No. 1 on arrest after the sunset.

Admittedly, the police neither made any report in

writing nor obtained prior permission of the Judicial

Magistrate of the first class within whose local

jurisdiction the offence is committed or the arrest

is to be made. Thus we find that the arrest of the

Complainant No. 1 after the sunset was totally

uncalled for and unwarranted which is against the

mandate of law. We record our dissatisfaction in

the manner in which the Complainant No. 1 was

arrested after the sunset.

16. The next point for consideration is whether

the arrest of the Complainants was justified in the

facts and the circumstances of the present case.

On the basis of the material on record, we are

convinced that the arrest of the Complainants was

not at all justified. It is the case of the Respondents

that the police had visited the residence of the

Complainants on 26-03-2011 for the purpose of

investigation in respect of the offence which was

registered on 21-03-2011 vide Crime No. 109/2011

u/s 498A of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. It is

their case that at that time the Complainants

abused and assaulted the police personnel while

discharging their lawful duty and as such another

offence vide Crime No. 118/2011 u/s 504 and 353 of

IPC read with 34 of IPC was registered against the

Complainants. It is further stated that during the

course of investigation the Complainants were

placed under arrest on 26-03-2011 at 20.00 hrs. it

has not been made clear by the Respondents as to

whether the Complainants were arrested in Crime

No. 109/2011 u/s 498A of IPC read with Section 34

of IPC or whether the Complainants were arrested

in Crime No. 118/2011 u/s 504 and 353 of IPC

read with 34 of IPC. Now, assuming that the

Complainants were arrested in Crime No. 109/2011

u/s 498A of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC or in

Crime No. 118/2011 u/s 504 and 353 of IPC read

with 34 of IPC, the crucial question would arise as

to whether it was necessary to arrest the

Complainants in the said crimes. In the case of

Joginder Kumar v/s State reported in (1994) 4

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 3

19TH APRIL, 2018

Supreme Court Cases 260, the Apex Court

considered the dynamics of misuse of the 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.”

In another case reported in (2014) 8 Supreme

Court Cases 273 (Arnesh Kumar, Appellant v/s

State of Bihar & Anr) the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has observed as follows:

“The existence of the power to arrest is one thing,

the justification for the exercise of it is quite another.

Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must

be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can

be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation

of Commission of an offence made against a person.

It would be prudent and wise for a police officer

that no arrest is made without a reasonable

satisfaction reached after some investigation as to

the genuineness of the allegation.”

“Law mandates the police officer to state the facts

and record reasons in writing which led him to

come to a conclusion covered by any of the

provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. Law

further requires the police officers to record the

reasons in writing for not making the arrest. In pith

and core, the police officer before arrest must put a

question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required?

What purpose it will serve, what object it will

achieve? It is only after these questions are

addressed and one or the other conditions as

enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest

needs to be exercised.”

While disposing off the above matter, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court directed all the State

Governments to instruct its police officers not to

automatically arrest when a case u/s 498A of the

IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about

the necessity of arrest under the parameters led

down above flowing from Section 41, Cr. P. C.

amongst other directions. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court also added that the directions aforesaid shall

not only apply to the cases u/s 498A of the IPC or

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but also to

such cases where offences punishable with

imprisonment for a term which may be less than

seven years or which may extend to seven years

whether with or without find.

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.”

17. In this particular case before us, it is not the

case of the police that the Complainants are

involved in grave offences like murder, dacoity,

robbery, rape etc. and it was necessary to arrest

the Complainants. It is not the case of the police

that the Complainants were likely to abscond or

evade process of law if not arrested. It is also not

the case of the police that the presence of the

Complainants was required for custodial

interrogation. It is also not the case of the police

that the Complainants were habitual offenders and

unless kept in custody, the Complainants were

likely to commit similar offences again. It appears

that the Complainants were arrested only because

the Complainants challenged the authority of the

police for visiting their house for the purpose of

investigation in Crime No. 109/2011 u/s 498A of

IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and allegedly

assaulted the police personnel during the course

of investigation. It is apparent that the police have

abused their powers and have acted in a high

handed manner while dealing with the

Complainants and placing them under arrest. It

was totally unfair on the part of the police to arrest

the Complainants in the set of circumstances of

this case.

18. The next question for determination is

whether there is sufficient material to establish

the fact as to whether the Mapusa Police have

assaulted the Complainants during the course of

arrest and during their custody with the Police.

The Complainant No. 2 (CW1) in his Affidavit-in-

-Evidence has stated in clear terms that on

26-03-2011 two Police Constables Mr. Sandeep

Kambli and Mr. Sanjay Pednekar used force on his

mother at night time at 7.00 p.m. in his house,

lifted her and threw her in the police jeep; the

Police Constable driver Mr. Vishwavijay Parab

assaulted him in his house at night time with sharp

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 3

19TH APRIL, 2018

knife on his left hand above elbow causing grave

injury to him; the said Mr. Vishwavijay Parab

slapped his mother and pushed her on the wall in

his house and at the same time Mr. Nitin Halarnkar

(PSI) and one more person assaulted him with slaps,

kicks and pushed him on the wall in his house. He

has further deposed that Police Inspector, Rajesh

Kumar came to the Police Station and ordered his

staff to beat him and as per the orders of the Police

Inspector, Shri Rajesh Kumar, his staff assaulted

him with slaps and punches and later P.I., Rajesh

Kumar also assaulted him with belt. The evidence

of the Complainant No. 2 (CW1) has been

satisfactorily corroborated by Complainant No. 1

(CW2). The Respondent No. 5/Shri Rajesh Kumar

has been examined as RW1. In his Affidavit-in-

-Evidence RW1 has stated that he was informed by

PSI, Nitin Halarnkar that the Complainants

Mrs. Sushma Karapurkar and her son Mr. Raya

Karapurkar assaulted the Police who had gone to

the residence of the Complainant and that Mrs.

Sushma Karapurkar was threatening the Police with

knife in her hand and hence the Complainant and

her son were apprehended. In his cross-

-examination RW1 has admitted that he had not

personally witnessed the incident of assault by

the Complainants on the police personnel. He has

further stated that his statement in para-14 of his

Affidavit-in-Evidence is as per the police records.

Thus it can be seen that the evidence of RW1 is

hearsay in nature. There are no grounds to discard

or disbelieve the evidence of the Complainants

when they have stated that they were assaulted

by the police. The Complainants have proved that

they were assaulted by the police during the course

of arrest and during the custody with police.

19. The next and last question for our

determination is whether the police were justified

in handcuffing the Complainant No. 2. There is no

dispute that the Complainant No. 2 was handcuffed

by the police. The law relating to handcuffing of

the prisoners has been laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Prem Shankar

Shukla v/s Delhi Administration reported in 1980

AIR SC 1535. In that case, the Apex Court has

observed as follows:

Handcuffing is prima facie inhuman and

therefore, unreasonable, is over-harsh and at

the first flush, arbitrary. Absent fair procedure

and objective monitoring, to inflict, ‘irons’ is

to resort to zoological strategies repugnant to

Article 21. Thus, we must critically examine

the justification offered by the State for this

mode of restraint. Surely, competing claims of

securing the prisoners from fleeing and

protecting his personality from barbarity have

to be harmonised. To prevent the scape of an

inter-trial is in public interest, reasonable, just

and cannot, by itself, be castigated. But to

bind a man hand and foot, fetter his limbs

with hoops of steel, shuffle him along in the

streets and stand him for hours in the Courts

is to torture him, defile his dignity, vulgarise

society and foul the soul of our constitutional

culture.

Handcuffs should not be used in routine. They

are to be used only where the prisoner is

desperate, rowdy or is involved in non-bailable

offence. There should ordinarily be no occasion

to handcuff persons occupying a good social

position in public life, or professionals

like jurists, advocates, doctors, writers,

educationists and well-known journalists. It

shall be the duty of supervisory officers at

various levels, the SHO primarily to see that

these instructions are strictly complied with.

In case of non-observance of these instructions,

severe action should be taken against the

defaulter.

In the present case, there was no necessity to

handcuff the Complainant No. 2. It is not the case

of the police that the Complainant No. 2 is a

hardened criminal and would have escaped if not

handcuffed. It is apparent that the police have

failed to observe the directions issued by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited

judgement reported in 1980 AIR SC 1535 (Supra).

20. Article 21 of the Constitution of India totally

prohibits the use of third degree method by the

Police Officials. It is obligatory on the State and its

machinery to respect and protect life and liberty of

an individual. Police have no right or assault or

disrespect any individual in the name of

investigation or interrogation. The police are bound

to respect human values and human rights. The

Complainant No. 2 is a Government servant. He is

living with his mother having roots in the State of

Goa. The Complainants had to suffer mental torture

and physical discomfort on account of high-

handedness of the police who have misused their

powers by curtailing the liberty of the

Complainants without justification. The records

indicate that Article 21 of the Constitution of India

has been infringed and also the basic human rights

of the Complainants have been seriously violated

by the police.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 3

19TH APRIL, 2018

21. 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.”

We, therefore, make the following recommen-

dations:

(i) The State of Goa through its Chief Secretary

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

five thousand only) to the Complainants 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 after fixing

responsibility.

(ii) The Director General of Police shall initiate

appropriate action against the Police

Inspector, Shri Rajesh Kumar and other

concerned Police Officials within 30 days for

non-observance of the directions issued by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

reported in 1980 AIR SC 1535.

Date: 10-02-2016.

Place: Panaji-Goa.

Sd/-

(Justice P. K. Misra)

(A. D. Salkar),

(J. A. Keny),

Chairperson,

Member,

Goa Human Rights Goa Human Rights Goa Human Rights

Commission.

————

No.: 1/52/99/HD(G)/GHRC/18

BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

AT PANAJI-GOA

Proceeding No. 15/2011

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 in the inquiry report dated 10-2-2016

of the above proceeding, I, the Under Secretary

(Home-II), Government of Goa would like to place

the following before the Hon’ble Commission:-

The Superintendent of Police (North), North

District, Porvorim vide his letter No. SP/North/

/Reader/2690/2016 dated 13-10-2016 has informed

that as per their office Order No. SP/North/Acctt/

/2904/2016 dated 10-10-2016 accordingly, letters

vide No. DSP(N)/Actt/2919/2016 & No. DSP(N)/

/Actt/2920/2016 dated 13-10-2016 has been sent to

Smt. Sushma Karapurkar and Shri Raya Karapur-

kar, r/o Karaswada, Mapusa thereby requesting

them to collect the Demand Draft of Rs. 2,500/-

each from the O/o S. P. (North), Account Section

during office hours. (Copy of Order & Letters are

annexed herewith.

Sd/-

(Neetal P. Amonkar),

Under Secretary (Home-II).

Place: Porvorim-Goa.

Dated: 03-01-2017.

_______

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LEGAL

& VIGILANCE

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

OF POLICE

PHQ, PANAJI-GOA- 403 001

Email: [email protected]

No. PHQ/PET-CELL/MAP-22/16/683/2018

dated 02-04-2018

To,

The Under Secretary,

Goa Human Rights Commission,

Old Education Department Bldg.,

1st Floor, 18th June Road,

Panaji-Goa.

Sub.:- Report into the inquiry report dated

10-02-2016 in proceeding No. 15/2011,

filed by Smt. Sushma Karapurkar and 2) Shri

Raya Karapurkar.

Ref.:- Proceeding No. 15/2011/497 dated 04-07-2017.

Sir,

With reference to the above and in continuation

to the letter No. PHQ/PET-CELL/GHRC/MAP-

-32/17/1876/17 dated 22-09-2017, I am directed to

submit that Shri S. R. Rivankar, Public Prosecutor

(High Court) had filed a Writ Petition vide No. 166/

/2017 on behalf of Chief Secretary of Goa, Under

Secretary (Home), DGP Goa, SP/North and P.I., Shri

Rajesh Kumar before the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay at Goa with regards to the recommenda-

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 3

19TH APRIL, 2018

tion at point No. 2 and same is pending before

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Bossuet Silva, GPS),

Superintendent of Police,

Legal and Vigilance,

Panaji-Goa.

Encl: As stated.

Copy to:-

The Under Secretary (Home),

Government of Goa,

Home Department (General),

Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa......(w.r.t. No. 1/52/99/-

-HD(G)/GHRC/1659 dated 12-06-2017).

———uuu———

Department of Labour

—

Order

No. 28/18/2017-LAB/252

Whereas the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of M/s. Funskool (India) Limited, Corlim, Goa, and it’s workmen represented by the Goa

Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto (hereinafter

referred to as the “said dispute”);

And whereas, the Government of Goa considers it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the

Government of Goa hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa at

Panaji-Goa, constituted under Section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

“(1) Whether the following demands raised by the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union, vide

their letter dated 20-12-2016, on the management of M/s. Funskool (India) Limited, Corlim, Goa, are

legal and justified?

CHARTER OF DEMANDS

1) Flat-Rise in the Basic Salary:

We demand that each worker be paid a sum of Rs. 1500/- as flat-rise in the basic salary as on

01-01-2017. The total basic salary as on 31-12-2016 plus the flat-rise of Rs. 1500/- per month be placed

in the pay-scales given below and fitted in the appropriate stage w.e.f. 01-01-2017.

Grade