BEHIND MAKING OF MANY POLICEMEN AND JUDGES A JUDICIAL TERRORIST

VISION FOR ALL

• 270 Posts
• 28 Comments

It has been brought to notice that a facebook friend is seeking legal assistance against UP Police that the report of previous Investigating Officers of UP Police has been found false after investigation of the case by Crime Branch and now the aggrieved person seeks help for prosecuting the Investigating Officers who did such.
As per provisions,Investigating Officers would be guilty of offences u/s 166,166(A)(b),167,217 and 218 of the IPC for which they be prosecuted and punished.
But the question is,what is the procedure to prosecute and punish such judicial terrorists.Not a single section pertaining to procedure for prosecution under above sections including section 219 IPC (which provides punishment against Judges/Magistrates for passing orders contrary to law) are available in the Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973.Procedures are available u/s 340 CrPC read with section 195 CrPC against certain offences committed before police,judges etc by contempting or misleading them etc.But if police,judges themself commit such nature of offences,then there is no specific procedure to prosecute them.
As there is no specific procedure,then what should be done to prosecute such terrorists till the time of insertion of procedures in the CrPC after amendment.Till the time of amendment which is possibly not going to be done by the Parliament,the Supreme Court ought to issue following guidelines-
1.Every higher court while deciding appeal/revision shall determine at the time of passing final order whether subordinate court had passed order contrary to law or not.If the order of subordinate court is found being passed contrary to law,then the higher court shall forward a copy of complaint to the competent magistrate(magistrate of first class) by whom offence u/s 219 IPC is triable,directing him to prosecute and punish suitably the judges/magistrates of concerned subordinate courts.
2.Every court while passing order by dismissing or disagreeing any report of police or other public servants,shall determine whether police or other public servants have committed offences u/s 166,166A(b),167,217 and 218 IPC or any of them or not.If found being committed,then the court determining such shall forward a copy of complaint to the competent magistrate(magistrate of first class) by whom offences under above sections are triable,directing him to prosecute and punish suitably the concerned police or public servants.
Provisions contained in above sought guidelines need to be inserted in the CrPC.

Now the question arises,what that facebook friend should do?Even in the absence of any specific procedure,the offence remains offence.His case is presently pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance upon police report.He should file an application on the date of passing final order before the same magistrate requesting him to determine at the time of passing final order,by which in case if he accepts the report of Crime Branch and rejects the report of Previous Investigating Officers, whether previous investigating officers have committed offences u/s 166,166A(b),167,217 and 218 IPC or any of them or not.If found being committed,then the court ought to forward a copy of complaint to the competent magistrate(magistrate of first class) by whom offences under above sections are triable,directing him to prosecute and punish suitably previous investigating officers.If this court of Magistrate fails to forward complaint for the above purpose,then he should file a revision petition u/s 397 CrPC before the Sessions Judge.If he is not satisfied by the order of Sessions Judge,then he should approach before the High Court u/s 482 CrPC or Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. If he is aggrieved by the order of High Court,then he should approach to the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. His case can pave the way of prosecuting such policemen and judges,if he fights.