A Uttar Pradesh sub-inspector shockingly named a judge as an accused in a theft case by blindly misreading a court proclamation. The Court slammed the officer’s gross negligence and ordered a high-level enquiry.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UP: In a surprising and strange incident in Uttar Pradesh, a police sub-inspector made a big mistake by writing the name of a judge instead of the actual accused in a court order related to a theft case.
This happened during the serving of a proclamation notice, which is a legal notice asking an accused person to appear in court.
Instead of looking for the real accused named Rajkumar, Sub-Inspector Banwarilal started searching for Chief Judicial Magistrate Nagma Khan, who was the judge that originally issued the proclamation notice against Rajkumar.
The judge had simply done her duty by issuing the proclamation under the law, but the sub-inspector misunderstood it completely.
The Court was very upset with the sub-inspector’s carelessness and pointed out that he seemed to lack even the basic knowledge of criminal procedures.
The Court said,
“It is quite bizarre that the serving officer of the concerned Police Station has little to no idea of what was sent by this court, who exactly sent it and against whom. The serving officer of the concerned Police Station who was supposed to comply with the proclamation issued under section 82 CrPC seems to have been lacking basic knowledge of what was asked in the proclamation on his part.”
According to Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), if the court believes that an accused person is hiding or running away from the law, it can issue a proclamation notice. This means the court gives a public notice asking that person to appear in court.
In this particular case, Magistrate Nagma Khan had issued such a proclamation against Rajkumar alias Pappu, who is the real accused. However, the police officer wrongly thought that the judge who issued the proclamation was the accused. He even wrote her name blindly on the document and treated the proclamation like a non-bailable warrant (NBW), which is used to arrest someone who cannot be let out on bail easily.
The mistake was noticed when the court looked at the case file on March 23 and found that the sub-inspector had submitted a report saying that the “accused” Nagma Khan was not found at her home.
Shockingly, he asked Magistrate Nagma Khan herself to take action against the “accused” — which was in fact, her own name, written due to his error.
The Court saw that the officer did not understand the difference between a proclamation and a non-bailable warrant.
The judge observed,
“It seems he has not even read it properly. Such patent and grave error on his part reflects poorly on his working as a police officer as he knows nothing of the duties enjoined on him. Without giving an inch of attention to the process, he first carelessly mentions the proclamation as an NBW and he then just wrote the name of the presiding officer (judge) quite blindly.”
The Court was very strict in its comments and said that the sub-inspector’s actions showed a clear neglect of duty. The Court warned that if such mistakes by police officers are ignored, it could badly affect the fundamental rights of ordinary people.
The Court strongly stated,
“A police officer serving process is supposed to exercise highest level of care as these processes entail heavy consequences. If such negligent police officials are made free to serve processes in such a blind form escaping consequences of their wrongs, they will run amok thus trampling upon the precious fundamental rights to liberty of anyone per their whims and fancies. The facts beforehand patently depicts he made zero efforts to pay heed to the process of this court. He has indicated utter neglect and carelessness in his duties. It shows gross dereliction of duty on his part.”
Due to the seriousness of the incident, the Court has now ordered higher police authorities to carry out an enquiry and take proper action against the sub-inspector.
The Court said,
“Considering the gravity and seriousness of the matter and the sheer outright negligence on the part of the police person concerned, this court is of the firm opinion that necessary enquiry must be conducted concerning his working and a copy of this order be thus sent to the IG Agra Range for necessary action and enquiry so that such unwarranted acts are never repeated in future.”
This incident has raised big concerns about how some police officers handle legal documents and court orders.
It also highlights the need for proper training and awareness among law enforcement so that such shocking mistakes do not happen again.
CASE TITLE:
State v Rajkumar and Anr
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Waqf
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
