Day after gun in court,cops pass the buck

A day after the accused in a murder attempt case flashed a loaded gun in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau at the Rohini court complex,the DCP’s office (Licensing) is yet to be intimated of the incident...

Written by Sairam Sanath Kumar | New Delhi | Published:August 20, 2010 2:50 am

A day after the accused in a murder attempt case flashed a loaded gun in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau at the Rohini court complex,the DCP’s office (Licensing) is yet to be intimated of the incident. ACP (Licensing) Sandeep Goyal said,“We have to receive the report from the local police first before we take action.” The court had directed the area DCP and the DCP (Licensing) to take appropriate action after the accused,Sudershan,bypassed metal detectors and security personnel to enter the court and flashed the weapon when the judge asked the police to produce the weapon used for the offence. The policemen present,however,snatched the gun away.

Sudershan,who had brought the weapon as evidence in the case,was in possession of it on superdari (a term used for releasing property involved in a criminal case to a person). The court further learnt that after the registration of the case,no information was sent to the DCP (Licensing) regarding the use of licensed firearm in the alleged incident. This means,the accused — now out on bail — will have possession of the weapon until the DCP (Licensing) revokes the licence.

The FIR in the case was registered in 2007 at the Shalimar Bagh police station,which falls under the jurisdiction of DCP (Northwest) Narendra Bundela,who said,“Security at the Rohini courts is the responsibility of DCP (Outer). Once we get the direction from the court,we will take immediate action.”

Judge Kamini Lau said,“I am shocked at the manner in which the accused,who was roaming in the court complex with the loaded firearm since morning,went unnoticed. It is a gross security lapse.”

The judge also came down heavily on the counsel for the accused,who pleaded that Sudershan was not aware that he was not required to bring the weapon to the court,and that he did so only according to the terms of the superdarinama. “The standing orders or directions prohibiting carrying of arms in the court complex have been displayed all over the complex; the accused cannot plead ignorance. It was the duty of the counsel of the accused and the investigating officer to have suitably advised the accused,which has not been done,” Lau said.

Video of the day

For all the latest News Archive News, download Indian Express App

    Live Cricket Scores & Results