JUDGMENT : 1. This application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is filed for quashing the criminal proceedings being Criminal Case No. 1469 of 2020 arising out of N.C. Memo No. 12 of 2020 filed and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod. 2. It is the case where on 22.12.2020, an incident took place in the main Court of the Principal District Court, Dahod, where the applicant in due discharge of his duty as an advocate was attending the Court when accidentally, the mobile phone of the applicant buzzed in vibration mode, which was noticed by the Presiding Judge and hence, the applicant had tendered apology, however, the mobile phone was seized and was handed over to the Court duty Constable, who had issued N.C. Memo No. 12 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 116 and 117 of the Bombay police Act and as the petitioner did not plead guilty, the Non-Cognizable case was transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate with Criminal Case No.1469 of 2020. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that though the matter had proceeded in due course upon the seizure of the mobile phone, the applicant begs to raise the basic contention that the act alleged against the applicant does not construe an offence under Sections 116 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act, and therefore, no prosecution can be maintained against the applicant. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a District Government Pleader of a reputation and is in fact, suffering from Cancer and the mobile phone vibration (buzz) was an alarm for him to consume his medicine at a particular time. It is in this background that the applicant has approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings. 5. Learned APP has opposed the application by submitting that the explanation offered to the Court here with regards to the vibration of the mobile phone during the Court proceedings, the same explanation could also be offered to the Court where the proceedings are pending and simplicitor by such value explanation, the proceedings cannot be quashed. 6. 5. Learned APP has opposed the application by submitting that the explanation offered to the Court here with regards to the vibration of the mobile phone during the Court proceedings, the same explanation could also be offered to the Court where the proceedings are pending and simplicitor by such value explanation, the proceedings cannot be quashed. 6. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, the fact, as narrated are the applicant is a District Government Pleader, who was attending the Court in due course of his duty where the mobile phone buzzed in vibration mode, which according to the petitioner, was a set alarm for the purpose of consuming the medicine, which he was supposed to take, as he was suffering from Cancer. It is also submitted to the Court that the applicant immediately apologies to the Presiding Officer, however, it appears that the Presiding Officer has taken exception and has forwarded the complaint for initiating the proceedings under Sections 116 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act. 7. Sections 115 and 116 of the Bombay Police Act are covering the commission of nuisance in or near street and dis-regarding of notice in public building respectively. The definition of Section 115 refers to commission of nuisance by the act of easing oneself, a child under the age of 7 is made to suffer by such nuisance or creating annoyance to passerby by spitting, throwing dust, ashes, refuse or rubbish, whereas Section 116 prohibits any person in Court, Police Station, Police Office or the buildings occupied by Government or building occupied by any public body, smoking or spitting in contravention of a notice by a competent authority in charge of such place and affixed to such Court, Station, office or building. 8. From the documents placed on record and the submissions made on behalf of the State, nothing is indicated with regard to any public notice on the Court building in connection with the mobile phone. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in case of Dnyaneshwar s/o. Vithuji Ghude Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr reported in 2014 SCC Online 1469 had an occasion to examine the act covered under the provisions of Sections 116 and 116 of the Bombay Police Act and in Paragraph No.19 has held as under:- “19. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in case of Dnyaneshwar s/o. Vithuji Ghude Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr reported in 2014 SCC Online 1469 had an occasion to examine the act covered under the provisions of Sections 116 and 116 of the Bombay Police Act and in Paragraph No.19 has held as under:- “19. Thus, the question which remains is about the conviction and sentence of fine as imposed. Section 117 of the Bombay Police Act is a punishing section and the substantive sentence for the present purpose is section 116 of the Bombay Police Act, which reads thus: 116. Disregard of notice in public building:-— No person shall, in any Court, Police Station, Police Office, building occupied by the Government or building occupied by any public body, smoke or spit in contravention of a notice by a competent authority in charge of such place and fixed to such Court, Station, office or building.” Evidently, the act of entering Court building chewing pan is not covered in this section. It is trite that any provision defining an offence has to be read and construed strictly. There is no scope for liberal construction in such a case. We would again hasten to add that this may not be read as approving the act of the petitioner in entering the Court room chewing Pan. However, it has to be seen, that strictly speaking the act did not fall under section 116 of the Act. In our considered opinion, the petitioner cannot be precluded from demonstrating the same in the present proceeding, notwithstanding a formal challenge being raised to the order of conviction and sentence. This is more so, when the same has resulted into a drastic civil consequence to the petitioner, of sustaining dismissal from service. We, therefore, find that going by the phraseology as used in section 116 of the Act, the act did not strictly fall in the same. Be that as it may, assuming that the act did fall under section 116 of the Act, the question is whether the competent authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal on the petitioner. The only reason given is that the petitioner being a member of a disciplined force was not expected to act in this manner. Be that as it may, assuming that the act did fall under section 116 of the Act, the question is whether the competent authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal on the petitioner. The only reason given is that the petitioner being a member of a disciplined force was not expected to act in this manner. Insofar as the second ground about the non-communication of the incident is concerned, we have already found that it cannot be made basis of the order, which is relatable to the second proviso (a) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submissions advanced and we are unable to persuade ourself to hold that the action can be justified on the basis of such conviction and sentence of fine. We find that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct which has led to the conviction. Thus, the impugned order has to be set aside. This takes us to the next question as to what relief needs to be granted. It is undisputed that the petitioner has since reached the age of superannuation on 30-9-2003. It is now 24 years that the impugned order of dismissal was passed. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation long before, there is no question of physical reinstatement of the petitioner in service. The question Is only about the monetary benefits, namely, retiral benefits as also the backwages/salary.” 9. Though the aforesaid decision was in the realm of service jurisprudence claiming of the retirement benefits withheld on account of the action under the provisions of Bombay Police Act still what is held in connection with Section 116 of the Bombay Police Act would be relevant for the purpose of this Case. 10. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances especially, the cause for which the mobile phone had buzzed/alarm set of for the purpose of medicine, the Court is inclined to quash on going criminal proceedings in connection with Criminal Case No. 1469 of 2020 arising out of NC Memo No. 12 of 2020 filed and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod. Accordingly, criminal proceedings in connection with Criminal Case No. 1469 of 2020 arising out of NC Memo No. 12 of 2020 filed and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod are quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the present petitions stands allowed. Rule is made absolute.