scorecardresearch
Follow Us:
Saturday, September 26, 2020

Probe officer is also complainant, Delhi Police pulled up by court

Sameer did not lead any evidence in his case but told the court that the IO, Inspector Kishore Pandey, falsely implicated him at the behest of a moneylender from the area.

Written by Anand Mohan J | New Delhi | Updated: September 12, 2020 8:42:17 am
penal rent, Chandigarh penal rent case, Punjab penal rent case, penal rent case, Punjab and Haryana High Court, India news, Indian ExpressA Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal has scheduled the hearing of the matter for November 26, 2020.

A Delhi court has pulled up the Delhi Police over a fake currency notes recovery case after observing that the main complainant and the investigating officer are the same, the seized currency notes were sent for examination after a year’s delay, and the raiding team made contradictory statements on the vehicles used to conduct the raid.

The observations were made by Additional Sessions Judge Sonu Agnihotri on Thursday in a judgment acquitting the accused, Sameer, who was facing trial for possession of fake currency notes.

Sameer was arrested by a team of Delhi Police from Najafgarh area in 2008, allegedly with Rs 65,000 in fake currency notes. He did not lead any evidence in his case but told the court that the IO, Inspector Kishore Pandey, falsely implicated him at the behest of a moneylender from the area.

The court said the most important aspect of the matter was that the “complainant in the present case is the Investigating Officer of the case, which is not desirable”.

“There was no compulsion with police authorities to continue prosecution witness 5 (IO) after registration of FIR… but his continuation as IO has reduced credibility of prosecution case,” the court said.

Furthermore, since the IO did not fill an FSL form as per standard procedure, the court said, “Non filling of FSL form by IO either at the spot or thereafter makes prosecution version doubtful and false implication of accused cannot be ruled out.”

The IO was also pulled up after it noted that he did not note down serial numbers of the recovered notes in his seizure memo.

The court granted benefit of doubt to the accused after noting that “recovery in the present case from accused is doubtful and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out”.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Delhi News, download Indian Express App.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement