Delhi: Convict threatens judge after verdict
NEW DELHI:
A Delhi court witnessed high drama when a convict and his lawyer openly threatened a judge after she convicted him in a cheque bounce case.
Judicial Magistrate (NI Act) Shivangi Mangla at Dwarka Court convicted the under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, after which he grew agitated and attempted to throw an object at the judge.
He then verbally abused her, saying, 'Who even are you…,' as noted in the court order dated April 2. Despite being directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437A of CrPC, the accused and his lawyer, Atul Kumar, allegedly tried to intimidate the judge into reversing the verdict.
They demanded her resignation and threatened to file complaints against her, subjecting the judge to severe harassment, both mental and physical. In response, the judge recorded in her order that appropriate action would be taken against the accused before the National Commission for Women (NCW) for the threats and harassment.
A show-cause notice was also issued to advocate Atul Kumar, asking why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. 'Court notice be issued to counsel for accused Atul Kumar to show cause in writing providing relevant explanation for the conduct shown by him today,' the court said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Lack of evidence: HC acquits man in Pocso case
Bhopal: A division bench of the MP High Court acquitted a person sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment by a Bhopal court on charges of sexual assault on his one-year-and-a-month-old daughter. The court, while setting aside the order of the Bhopal POCSO court, said that under sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the 'burden of proof' can't be entirely shifted onto the accused in POCSO cases. According to the prosecution, the wife of the accused, in her report lodged with the police, said that she went to the bathroom, and when she came back, she saw her husband sexually assaulting their daughter. She took her daughter to a doctor the next day, who found the private part of the baby reddish. She informed him of what she saw her husband doing to the baby the previous day. The doctor advised her to seek help from the Child Helpline. She subsequently reported the matter to the police. In the medical examination of the girl, rashes were found on her private part, its peripheral area, and the waist. The doctors opined that the marks were not created by diapers, paper napkins, or things like that. Samples of the accused's nails and fingers were sent for FSL examination, but they didn't match the samples of his daughter. Hearing the criminal revision petition of the father, the bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice D N Mishra said that sections 29 and 30 (2) of the POCSO Act don't absolve the prosecution from the 'burden of proof' as specified under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act. An accused would carry the burden to prove himself innocent only if the prosecution is able to establish the charge against him prima facie "by adhering to the standard of proof of preponderance of probability. It's only then that the accused has to displace the presumption of guilt," the judges said. The division bench said that witnesses in the case have stated that the wife of the accused, who is the complainant in the case, told them about the incident. The statements of the wife recorded under sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC and her statement in the court are contradictory. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge of sexual assault on the accused, and he is entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt, said the court while setting aside the POCSO court order.
NDTV
3 hours ago
- NDTV
Cops Firing Upon Car Driver In Plain Clothes Not Official Duty: Supreme Court
New Delhi: The conduct of police personnel surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant cannot be considered under duties of public order or effecting lawful arrest, the Supreme Court has said, dismissing a plea of nine Punjab cops to quash murder charges against them in an alleged fake encounter case. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also restored the destruction of evidence charge levelled on Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Parampal Singh for directing the removal of the number plate of the car after the firing incident in 2015 in which a driver was killed. It has been held that the cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice, the court observed noting that prior sanction was not required to prosecute the DCP and other police personnel for their alleged actions. The bench in its April 29 order uploaded recently dismissed the appeals of nine police personnel challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order of May 20, 2019, where it refused to quash the case against them. The apex court said having gone through the material placed on record, the court is of the view that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order of the high court. The bench rejected the submission of eight police personnel that cognisance of complaint against them cannot be taken as it was barred under Section 197 of CrPC under which prior permission was needed to prosecute public servants. "Equally untenable is the submission that cognisance was barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The petitioners stand accused of surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant. "Such conduct, by its very nature, bears no reasonable nexus to the duties of maintaining public order or effecting lawful arrest," it said. The bench further said, "The availability of official firearms, or even an erroneous official objective cannot transmute acts wholly outside the colour of authority into those done while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty." Dealing with the case involving DCP Parampal Singh, the bench said an act that is per se directed to erasing potential evidence, if ultimately proved, cannot be regarded as reasonably connected with any bona-fide police duty. "The test consistently applied by this court is whether the impugned act bears a direct and inseparable nexus to official functions. "We believe that where the very accusation is suppression of evidence, the nexus is absent on the face of the record. In such a situation the bar of section 197 CrPC is not attracted, and sanction is not a condition precedent to cognisance," the bench said. It said this court in a verdict of 2000 while dealing with Section 197 of CrPC held that "the cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice". The top court said the criminal complaint alleges, in clear and specific terms, that the nine policemen surrounded the Hyundai i-20 car, alighted with firearms, and fired in concert, fatally injuring the occupant. It added that the narrative was supported, at least prima facie, by two eye-witness depositions recorded under Section 200 CrPC during the preliminary inquiry. "In addition, the Special Investigation Team constituted at the behest of senior police administrators, found the self-defence version subsequently projected in be false and recommended prosecution of eight of the petitioners for culpable homicide. "A CCTV clip recovered by the SIT depicts the three police vehicles converging on the i-20 exactly as alleged. Taken together, these materials furnish a coherent evidentiary thread sufficient, at the threshold, to justify summoning and the framing of charges," the top court said. Justice Nath, who penned the verdict on behalf of the bench said the order of the magistrate summoning the policemen and the subsequent order of the Sessions Court framing charges proceed on an appreciation that there exists prima facie evidence of concerted firearm assault. "No error of law or perversity of approach is shown," the bench said and dismissed the appeal filed by the policemen. The top court, however, allowed the appeal of complainant Princepal Singh seeking reversal of the high court's order of May 20, 2019, by which it had quashed a criminal complaint and the summoning order against DCP Parampal Singh in the destruction of evidence case against him. The bench said, "In our considered opinion, at the summoning stage, those two depositions, read with the detailed narrative in the complaint, furnish a legally sufficient basis to proceed. Their credibility is a matter for trial, not for preliminary scrutiny." As per the complaint, at 6.30 pm, on June 16, 2015, a police party, travelling in a Bolero jeep, an Innova and a Verna, intercepted a white Hyundai i-20 on the Verka-Batala Road in Amritsar of Punjab. It said nine policemen alighted in plain clothes and, after a brief exhortation, opened fire from pistols and assault rifles at close range, killing the car driver, Mukhjit Singh @ Mukha. The complainant (then riding a motorcycle nearby) and another witness claim to have seen the shooting and to have raised an alarm that drew local residents to the spot. They claimed shortly after the firing incident, DCP Parampal Singh arrived with additional force, cordoned off the scene and directed the removal of the car's registration plates.
News18
5 hours ago
- News18
Cops In Plainclothes Firing Upon Car Driver Not Part Of Official Duty: Supreme Court
Last Updated: The court made the observation while dismissing the plea of nine Punjab police personnel seeking to quash murder charges in an alleged 2015 fake encounter case. The Supreme Court ruled that the conduct of police personnel surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and firing upon its occupant cannot be considered part of official duties related to maintaining public order or carrying out a lawful arrest. The court made the observation while dismissing the plea of nine Punjab police personnel seeking to quash murder charges in an alleged 2015 fake encounter case. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also reinstated the charge of destruction of evidence against then-Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Parampal Singh for allegedly ordering the removal of the car's number plate following the incident. 'It has been held that the cloak of official duty cannot be extended to acts intended to thwart justice," the court said, adding that prior sanction was not required to prosecute the accused police officials, including the DCP. The Supreme Court's April 29 order, recently uploaded on its website, upheld a May 20, 2019 decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had refused to quash the case against the nine accused personnel. Rejecting the argument that the complaint was barred under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)—which requires prior sanction for prosecuting public servants—the court said such protection was not applicable in this case. 'Equally untenable is the submission that cognisance was barred for want of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The petitioners stand accused of surrounding a civilian vehicle in plain clothes and jointly firing upon its occupant. Such conduct, by its very nature, bears no reasonable nexus to the duties of maintaining public order or effecting lawful arrest," the bench said. In the case of DCP Parampal Singh, the court said the alleged act of removing the vehicle's registration plate—if proven—was clearly aimed at suppressing evidence and could not be reasonably linked to any bona fide police function. 'Where the very accusation is suppression of evidence, the nexus is absent on the face of the record," it said. The criminal complaint in the case stated that on June 16, 2015, around 6:30 PM, a police team in plain clothes intercepted a white Hyundai i-20 on Verka-Batala Road in Amritsar. The team, travelling in a Bolero, an Innova, and a Verna, allegedly opened fire at close range, killing the driver, Mukhjit Singh alias Mukha. The complaint further alleged that the firing was witnessed by two people, including the complainant, who was passing by on a motorcycle. Their statements were recorded under Section 200 CrPC during a preliminary inquiry. A Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted at the behest of senior police officials, reportedly found the self-defence claim mentioned in the FIR to be false. The SIT recommended the prosecution of eight officers for culpable homicide and recovered CCTV footage showing the police vehicles converging on the i-20, corroborating the sequence of events. Justice Nath, writing the judgment for the bench, said the orders of the magistrate summoning the policemen and the subsequent framing of charges by the sessions court were based on a prima facie assessment of concerted firearm assault. 'No error of law or perversity of approach is shown," the court held, while dismissing the appeals filed by the accused police personnel. In a parallel development, the Supreme Court allowed an appeal by complainant Princepal Singh, challenging the High Court's decision to quash the complaint and summoning order against DCP Parampal Singh in the evidence tampering case.
