You are here: Home » PTI Stories » National » News
Business Standard

'Magistrate did not realise cops' pressure of work'

Press Trust of India  |  New Delhi 

A sessions has absolved two Police officials of the offence of intentionally not arresting an accused in an assault case, observing that the magisterial here issued coercive direction against them without realising the "pressure of work" on cops.

The made the remark while allowing the revision plea of a Station House Officer of Nangloi Police Station and a Sub Inspector of Govindpuri Police Station against a metropolitan magistrate's order which had said that offence under section 221 (intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend) of was made out against them.



"It appears from the impugned order as well as other orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) passed earlier and challenged before this by way of this revision that the MM without distinguishing between the 'bonafide' and 'malafide' lapses on the part of the police officials gets irked by the slightest and smallest lapses on their part.

"And issues coercive directions against them without even realizing the pressure of work which exists on the police officials in discharge of their official duties," Additional Sessions Judge Lokesh Kumar Sharma said.

A magisterial had in its October this year order held that the two cops had committed the offence under section 221 by intentionally not bringing a man Shamsuddin Malik, accused in an assault case, before the court.

The offence is punishable with upto two years imprisonment or fine or both.

In their revision plea, the cops had contended that non- bailable warrant issued against Malik could not be executed because he was admitted in a drug rehabilitation centre and the incharge of the centre did not hand over his custody without advice of the doctor concerned.

The sessions court, while allowing their plea, said, "From the facts, as appearing on record, it has been clearly established that there was no malafide or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners in not apprehending the accused who was otherwise admitted in the de-addiciton centre undergoing medical treatment for his habit of alcoholism."

It also said it has not been mentioned by the magistrate in his order as to what unlawful gain or advantage would have been derived by the petitioners (cops) in not apprehending or arresting the accused.

"Inviewoftheaforesaidreasons,Iamoftheconsidered opinion thatimpugnedordersuffersfrompatentillegality and cannotsustainany further.Accordingly,therevisionpetition isallowedandimpugnedorders aresetasideandrecalled," the said.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

'Magistrate did not realise cops' pressure of work'

A sessions court has absolved two Delhi Police officials of the offence of intentionally not arresting an accused in an assault case, observing that the magisterial court here issued coercive direction against them without realising the "pressure of work" on cops. The court made the remark while allowing the revision plea of a Station House Officer of Nangloi Police Station and a Sub Inspector of Govindpuri Police Station against a metropolitan magistrate's order which had said that offence under section 221 (intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend) of IPC was made out against them. "It appears from the impugned order as well as other orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) passed earlier and challenged before this court by way of this revision petition that the MM without distinguishing between the 'bonafide' and 'malafide' lapses on the part of the police officials gets irked by the slightest and smallest lapses on their part. "And ... A sessions has absolved two Police officials of the offence of intentionally not arresting an accused in an assault case, observing that the magisterial here issued coercive direction against them without realising the "pressure of work" on cops.

The made the remark while allowing the revision plea of a Station House Officer of Nangloi Police Station and a Sub Inspector of Govindpuri Police Station against a metropolitan magistrate's order which had said that offence under section 221 (intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend) of was made out against them.

"It appears from the impugned order as well as other orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) passed earlier and challenged before this by way of this revision that the MM without distinguishing between the 'bonafide' and 'malafide' lapses on the part of the police officials gets irked by the slightest and smallest lapses on their part.

"And issues coercive directions against them without even realizing the pressure of work which exists on the police officials in discharge of their official duties," Additional Sessions Judge Lokesh Kumar Sharma said.

A magisterial had in its October this year order held that the two cops had committed the offence under section 221 by intentionally not bringing a man Shamsuddin Malik, accused in an assault case, before the court.

The offence is punishable with upto two years imprisonment or fine or both.

In their revision plea, the cops had contended that non- bailable warrant issued against Malik could not be executed because he was admitted in a drug rehabilitation centre and the incharge of the centre did not hand over his custody without advice of the doctor concerned.

The sessions court, while allowing their plea, said, "From the facts, as appearing on record, it has been clearly established that there was no malafide or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners in not apprehending the accused who was otherwise admitted in the de-addiciton centre undergoing medical treatment for his habit of alcoholism."

It also said it has not been mentioned by the magistrate in his order as to what unlawful gain or advantage would have been derived by the petitioners (cops) in not apprehending or arresting the accused.

"Inviewoftheaforesaidreasons,Iamoftheconsidered opinion thatimpugnedordersuffersfrompatentillegality and cannotsustainany further.Accordingly,therevisionpetition isallowedandimpugnedorders aresetasideandrecalled," the said.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

image
Business Standard
177 22

'Magistrate did not realise cops' pressure of work'

A sessions has absolved two Police officials of the offence of intentionally not arresting an accused in an assault case, observing that the magisterial here issued coercive direction against them without realising the "pressure of work" on cops.

The made the remark while allowing the revision plea of a Station House Officer of Nangloi Police Station and a Sub Inspector of Govindpuri Police Station against a metropolitan magistrate's order which had said that offence under section 221 (intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend) of was made out against them.

"It appears from the impugned order as well as other orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) passed earlier and challenged before this by way of this revision that the MM without distinguishing between the 'bonafide' and 'malafide' lapses on the part of the police officials gets irked by the slightest and smallest lapses on their part.

"And issues coercive directions against them without even realizing the pressure of work which exists on the police officials in discharge of their official duties," Additional Sessions Judge Lokesh Kumar Sharma said.

A magisterial had in its October this year order held that the two cops had committed the offence under section 221 by intentionally not bringing a man Shamsuddin Malik, accused in an assault case, before the court.

The offence is punishable with upto two years imprisonment or fine or both.

In their revision plea, the cops had contended that non- bailable warrant issued against Malik could not be executed because he was admitted in a drug rehabilitation centre and the incharge of the centre did not hand over his custody without advice of the doctor concerned.

The sessions court, while allowing their plea, said, "From the facts, as appearing on record, it has been clearly established that there was no malafide or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners in not apprehending the accused who was otherwise admitted in the de-addiciton centre undergoing medical treatment for his habit of alcoholism."

It also said it has not been mentioned by the magistrate in his order as to what unlawful gain or advantage would have been derived by the petitioners (cops) in not apprehending or arresting the accused.

"Inviewoftheaforesaidreasons,Iamoftheconsidered opinion thatimpugnedordersuffersfrompatentillegality and cannotsustainany further.Accordingly,therevisionpetition isallowedandimpugnedorders aresetasideandrecalled," the said.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

image
Business Standard
177 22

Upgrade To Premium Services

Welcome User

Business Standard is happy to inform you of the launch of "Business Standard Premium Services"

As a premium subscriber you get an across device unfettered access to a range of services which include:

  • Access Exclusive content - articles, features & opinion pieces
  • Weekly Industry/Genre specific newsletters - Choose multiple industries/genres
  • Access to 17 plus years of content archives
  • Set Stock price alerts for your portfolio and watch list and get them delivered to your e-mail box
  • End of day news alerts on 5 companies (via email)
  • NEW: Get seamless access to WSJ.com at a great price. No additional sign-up required.
 

Premium Services

In Partnership with

 

Dear Guest,

 

Welcome to the premium services of Business Standard brought to you courtesy FIS.
Kindly visit the Manage my subscription page to discover the benefits of this programme.

Enjoy Reading!
Team Business Standard