Bombay High Court Denies Relief To Police Officer Who Laughed At Judge On VC While Recording Evidence

The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash a letter issued by a Sessions Court in Beed district to the Director General of Police (DGP), Maharashtra to frame 'Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for police officials to maintain decorum in the court while recording evidence through video conferencing facility. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale dismissed the petition filed by Bramhanand Naikwadi, the Senior Police Inspector at Nerul Police Station in Navi Mumbai, who while recording his testimony in a criminal case through VC (on his mobile phone) kept muting his mic, spoke to people around him and on being 'admonished' he 'laughed' at the judge. The bench noted that while recording the evidence, Naikwadi kept muting his microphone and was speaking with someone else in the room. "When the Trial Judge admonished him not to speak to anybody while deposing, the Petitioner laughed. Despite repeated warnings by the Court to answer properly, he kept telling the APP that everything is written in the panchanama," the bench noted. Further the judges noted that the Trial Judge also found Naikwadi to be answering his phone and when questioned he replied that he had to answer the call of the Commissioner of Police."The behavior of the Petitioner prima facie clearly reeks of insolent conduct on his part. The High Court and the Trial Court have laid down Rules for conduct of hearing through the medium of video conference. The mere fact of being permitted to appear and depose from the comfort and convenience of his office definitely did not allow him to take the Court proceedings casually," the judges observed in the order passed on April 16. Recording of evidence, the bench emphasised is a crucial part of a trial. And in the instant case, the Naikwadi's evidence was highly significant considering that he was the Investigating Officer in the case. "The annoyance of the District Judge depicted in the impugned letter cannot be considered as exaggerated or misconceived. The manner in which the Petitioner conducted himself during the proceedings is sure to cause some obstruction in the administration of justice and affect the proceedings in the trial. In any case, a request by the Trial Judge to the Petitioner's superior Officer to frame SOP's for the investigating agencies in giving evidence through video conference does not imply any personal vendetta of the Trial Judge against the Petitioner, as alleged by him," the judges opined. The bench did not find any "infirmity or illegality" on the part of the Trial Judge in issuing the impugned letter and accordingly dismissed the petition. Notably, Naikwadi was required to appear before the Sessions Court in Beed district on January 20, 2025. Since he could not travel and appear physically, he appeared through VC on his mobile phone. While testifying before the court, a constable knocked on his chamber's doors and it is then, he raised his hands to stop the constable from entering and even apologised to the court. However, he received a 'show cause notice' from the Sessions Judge on January 31 seeking an explanation as to why action should not be initiated against him for contempt of Court. He then explained his stance on the issue by a response submitted on February 4 but then received one more show cause notice on February 19 from the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Maharashtra.Before the judges, Naikwadi explained that he was on duty in supervising arrangements for the 'Coldplay Concert' to be held from January 18 to January 21. "As a huge crowd was expected to attend the entire concert was marked as 'sensitive' and 'serious' from the point of view of security. The Petitioner was thus tired and under stress, like all other police officials in his team. It was during this period that the evidence of the Petitioner was to be recorded before the Trial Court. The internet connection was also very poor and the microphone was intermittently getting muted. There was no intention on the part of the Petitioner to disrespect the Trial Judge. There was also no impropriety, nor was his conduct contemptuous," it was argued. However, the bench refused to accept the said contentions and dismissed the petition, with liberty to deal with the show cause notice issued by his senior officer to him on its own merits.Appearance: Advocates Rizwan Merchant and Rajabhau Chaudhari appeared for the Petitioner.Additional Public Prosecutor Vitthal Konde-Deshmukh represented the State. Case Title: Bramhanand Naikwadi vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 1906 of 2025)Click Here To Read/Download Order

Bombay High Court Denies Relief To Police Officer Who Laughed At Judge On VC While Recording Evidence

Narsi Benwal

Tags