22 August 2012

Pin It

Understand Section 37(1) (3) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act FIR Against MNS

Understand Section 37(1) (3) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act FIR Against MNS

MNS had got permission for a public meeting at Azad Maidan but not for march.


Media reported that An FIR has been registered against MNS secretary Shirish Sawant and others for  taking out procession from Girgaum till Azad Maidan  without police permission.

FIR does not mention the name of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray.

Mr. Sawant who had asked for permission as the organizer of the rally.

PTI reported that MNS general secretary Shirish Sawant and others were booked at D B Marg police station under section 37 (1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act for carrying out procession without permission.

There are two judgments of the Bombay High Court which state that
no political gathering is allowed at Girgaum Chaupatty and that there should be no political activity outside the Azad Maidan limits. But Mr. Thackeray’s rally went against both verdicts,”

if the court took cognizance, a ‘contempt of court’ case could also be registered against Mr. Thackeray and his party.

Understand Bombay Police Act –
Section 37(1) (3) read with Section 135

Section 37 –

Power to prohibit certain for prevention of disorder.

(1) The Commissioner and the District Magistrate in areas under their respective charges, may whenever and for such time as he shall
consider necessary for the preservation of public peace or public safety by a notification publicly promulgated or addressed to individuals, prohibit at any town, village or place or in the vicinity of any such town, village or place-

(a)the carrying of arms, cudgels, swords, spears, bludgeons, guns, knives, sticks or lathis, or any other article, which is capable of being used for causing physical violence;

(b)the carrying of any corrosive substance or of explosives;


(c)the carrying, collection and preparation of stones or other missiles or instruments or means of a casting or impelling missiles;

(d)the exhibition of persons or corpses of figures or effigies thereof;

(e)the public utterance of cries, singing of songs, playing of musk;

(f)delivery of harangues, the use of gestures or mimetic representations, and the preparation, exhibition or dissemination of pictures, symbols, p1acards or any other object or thing which may in the opinion  of such authority offend against decency of morality or undermine the security of or tend to overthrow the State.

(2) If any person goes armed with any such article or carries any corrosive substance or explosive or missile in contravention of such prohibition, he shall be liable to be disarmed or the corrosive substance or explosive missile shall be liable to be seized from him by any Police officer, and the
article, corrosive substance, explosive or missile so seized shall be forfeited to the State Government.

(3) The authority empowered under sub-section (1) may also by order in writing prohibit any assembly or procession whenever and for so long as it considers such prohibition to be necessary for the preservation of the public order: 
Provided that no such prohibition shall remain in force for more than fifteen days without the sanction of the State Government.

(4) The authority empowered under sub-section (1) may also by public notice temporarily reserve for any public purpose any sheet or public place and prohibit persons from entering the area so reserved, except under such conditions as may be prescribed by such authority.

Section 135 –

Penalty for contravention of rule or directions under Sec. 37, 39 or 40. Whoever disobeys an order lawfully made from Sec. 37, 39 or 40 or abets the disobedience thereof shall, on conviction, be punished,

(  i)  if the order disobeyed or of which the disobedience was abetted was made under sub-section

(1) of Sec. 37 or under Sec. 39, or Sec. 40, with imprisonment for a term which may extend  to one year but shall not except for reasons to be recorded in writing, be less than four months and shall also be liable to fine, and

(ii)  if the said order was made under sub-section (2) of Sec. 37 with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, and

(iii)  if the said order was made under sub-section (3) of Sec. 37, with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees.

Reality views by sm –

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Tags – Bombay Police Act
 

5 comments:

Dr. Krantikumar September 15, 2015  

In Coats v. Cincinnati (US Supreme Court ) it was laid down that the police does not have power to curtail the freedom granted by the Constitution. Issuing prohibitory order itself is an act of snatching away what has been granted.There should be sufficient reason to issue a prohibitory sanction for example a civil conflict. Coats , a young student was demonstarting within an area under prohibitory order. It is constitutional if trouble maker is arrested without thrashing and then released. Booking offence and asking punishment is just unconstitutional. How can some one be punished for using freedom in a democracy?

SM September 17, 2015  

@Dr. Krantikumar
thanks.
India is a limited democracy.

Aniket Gole July 27, 2016  

Nyc and detailed description