Notice issued against DCP North

After going through the show cause notice under Section 50 before an order is made against an accused the Police Commissioner can, by a written notice, inform the accused of the allegations against him and give the accused an opportunity to explain of the DP Act, the MM said that Srivastava had fixed the date of hearing for May 31, the same day that the accused had been arrested by the Kashmere Gate police.

The magistrate noticed several discrepancies in the DCP8217;s notice. 8220;How can a DCP expect a detenu to appear before him on 31.5.98 when the said detenu has been arrested by the police of PS Kashmere Gate on 31.5.98 itself. In other words, both accused, were in the custody of SI Ravi Singh for two days on 30.5.98 and 31.5.98. That is why the DCP purposely did not mention any date of issuance of show cause notice, nor did he bother to put a date under his signature. This shows how malafide the entire police machinery is.8221;MM Gupta also said in his order: 8220;The most disturbing fact of the case is that perhaps the DCP has forgotten or in his mis-over-enthusiastic spirit overlooked the fact that 31.5.98 was a holiday being a Sunday. How can a DCP hold the court on Sunday.8221; The magistrate also said that Srivastava 8220;went to the extent of manipulating another warrant of commitment dated 31.5.98 which now requires the appearance of accused persons on 12.6.98.8221;

Sher Khan and Ashraf were produced before a duty magistrate on May 31, who remanded them to a days police custody and ordered a medical examination, which was never conducted. The two allegedly 8220;confessed8221; to the crime but the IO failed to recover the stolen money. As their remand expired, the accused were produced before MM Gupta, and the IO asked for a further three days remand. The magistrate observed that this 8220;was obviously to extract confessions by using third degree methods.8221; Ashraf couldn8217;t walk properly and Sher Khan was bleeding from the ear.

As nothing was recovered even after the alleged disclosure statement8217;s of the accused, the magistrate said, 8220;Alleged disclosure statements of accused persons are therefore, conspicuously hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, and hence not admissible evidence.8221; The two were subsequently discharged under Section 59 CrPC which authorises a magistrate to discharge an accused by special order.

While Section 462 of the Criminal Procedure Code CrPC states that if an accused resists or evades arrest then a police officer may use such means to necessitate the arrest, the MM observed: 8220;8230; the force contemplated to be used by the police officer should be proportionate to and commensurate with the arrest of accused and nothing beyond.8221;

The section also states that the accused cannot be subjected to more restraint that is necessary to prevent his escape. 8220;Corporal punishment to an accused is no where provided under any law.8221;

While the MM acknowledged the fact that police had to be stern with hard-core criminals, he said that this does not 8220;give any untrammeled powers to the police to beat and thrash the accused in barbaric, ruthless and inhumane manner.8221; A separate complaint has been sent to chief metropolitan magistrate Prem Kumar.