India News | Court Raps Police Official over Ignorance of Legal Principles, Recommends Departmental Action
Get latest articles and stories on India at LatestLY. Castigating a Delhi Police official probing a 2020 communal riots case for his ignorance of legal principles and defiance of its order for conducting further investigation after filing of the chargesheet, a court here has recommended departmental action against him.
New Delhi, Dec 13 (PTI) Castigating a Delhi Police official probing a 2020 communal riots case for his ignorance of legal principles and defiance of its order for conducting further investigation after filing of the chargesheet, a court here has recommended departmental action against him.
The court also observed that the practice of filing an unlimited number of chargesheets, whenever a question was raised on an incomplete aspect of the probe, must be stopped.
Also Read | Bengaluru Shocker: Hours After Mother's Death, Woman Dies by Suicide at Her Flat.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala was hearing a case related to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots registered at Khajuri Khas police station against Mahender and others.
He said the court had earlier referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), northeast district, after observing that the calendar of evidence and statement about a complaint were "hearsay evidence".
Noting the submissions of the public prosecutor, who said a supplementary chargesheet was filed as "clarification", the judge said the investigating officer (IO) did not seek permission for further investigation or re-examination of the witnesses.
"This court has already taken objection against such practice of the IOs, wherein after filing the final report of investigation (chargesheet) before the court, the trend of examining any new witness and re-examining old witness is continuing without even taking permission from the court," he said in an order passed on Tuesday.
The judge referred to a 2019 verdict of the Supreme Court, which held that a judicial magistrate had the power to order further investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
He also underlined that according to the relevant provision of CrPC, once the chargesheet has been filed, it was necessary to seek the court's permission to carry out further investigation.
"But unfortunately, the same has been done in this case in defiance and ignorance of legal principles," he said.
The judge again referred the matter to the DCP and asked the official to "conduct a departmental inquiry into this aspect of ignorance and defiance to the directions of the court and take suitable steps accordingly".
"At the same time, he (the DCP) is also requested to ensure that such defiance and ignorance of law is not repeated by any of the IOs. Such a concept should not be nurtured by the IO that they are free to re-examine any witness as per their will, even after filing the final report of investigation, without taking permission from the court," he said.
The court said as the calendar of evidence in the case was "insufficient", the court expected the DCP to take some "concrete action".
"On the last date of hearing one supplementary chargesheet was filed by the same IO and it appears that it has been taken for granted that for every kind of query being raised by the court against insufficient job done by IOs, they shall be free to file an unlimited number of chargesheets as per their convenience. Such practice must be stopped," the judge said.
Deprecating the IO's conduct, he said, "The court had invited answer to the queries, rather than a supplementary chargesheet."
The judge said the present supplementary chargesheet will not be treated as part of the record as it was filed "in defiance of legal principles".
The matter has been posted for further proceedings on January 4.
(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)