The state DIG, Arvind Inamdar was also present in court in some other matter when the court observed that the police are either seldom present in court on time or fail to give correct instructions to the public prosecutor. ``The police seem to be interested in jobs more lucrative,'' Justice Sawant observed.

A flustered state advocate general C J Sawant replied that these observations were serious and that the state would soon convene a meeting of high ranking police officers to impress upon them the need to show respect to the judiciary. Home ministry officials too would be informed of these observations, heassured.

While two police officials have unconditionally apologised for an oversight in one of the cases, the public prosecutor who was instructed in a case in Guhagar taluka has been asked to file an affidavit about it.

Police sub inspector P M Shinde, earlier with the Mata Ramabai police station, and his then senior PI Baghul today filed their affidavits apologising for an erroneous instruction that they had passed on to the public prosecutor that had resulted in the refusal of bail to one accused, Devraj Devappa Gouda, who was arrested for murder.

Earlier this year, the Bombay High Court had rejected Gouda's application since the police stated that he was wanted in another case and would tamper with evidence if he was let out. However, Gouda filed a fresh application claiming that there was no case pending against him.

Taking a stern view of the situation, the bench today kept the affidavits of the police officials pending for consideration when the bail application is taken up next week. Gouda hasbeen released on temporary bail.

The averments in the other case are more serious. Savitribai Basankar, a resident of Guhagar taluka in Ratnagiri, had filed a criminal writ petition in 1998 accusing her son-in-law, Sanjay Khake of causing the death of her daughter, Leela who was married in 1994. Since the police were not taking action, she moved court.

The petition was however eventually withdrawn when public prosecutor P S Singhal, taking instructions from one PSI Dilip Ganpat Narkundkar stated that the police had filed a chargesheet against Khake under sections 306 (abetment to suicide) and 498-A and that he had been arrested. The petition was withdrawn on March 13, 1998.

However, when Basankar returned to her village, she found that Khake had not been arrested. Enquiries revealed that Khake had surrendered to the local court only on March 14, 1998, after the petition was withdrawn, that he had been discharged under section 306 and was on bail.

Basankar has now moved court again to take actionagainst the police and the public prosecutor for misleading the court and to hear her previous petition afresh. PSI Narkundkar has now engaged an lawyer, Satish Borulkar to represent him, who argued that he had not given any such instructions to Singhal on the earlier occasion. Singhal however replied that proof of the instructions was in the docket of the brief where he always wrote down instructions.

Interestingly, the docket of the papers was missing. The present public prosecutor in the case, Deepak Salvi told the court that while he had got the earlier brief, the docket was missing. Singhal has now been directed by the bench to file an affidavit with his averments.