SUBRAMONIAM Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)In this writ petition Mr. K. Chandrasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the order passed by the 1st respondent, namely the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, Calicut, under Ext. P. 1, as also the order of the 2nd respondent, namely the Inspector General of Police, Kerala State, under Ext. P. 2. It is enough to note at the moment that under Ext. P. 1, which takes in also the punishment roll issued as against the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, the punishing authority, namely, the 1st respondent, holds the petitioner guilty of the charge for which he was tried, and ultimately inflicts a punishment by directing that the next increment which the officer is eligible for, will be withheld for one year, without having the effect of postponing the future increments. An appeal taken, as against this order by the petitioner was disposed of by the appellate authority, namely the 2nd respondent, under Ext. P. 2. Ultimately, the appellate authority also confirmed the order passed by 1st respondent under Ext. P. 1.
(2.)The circumstances under which these two orders came to be passed, may be briefly indicated. The petitioner was the Circle Inspector of Police at Taliparamba in December 1960. According to the prosecution, one Mr. Skaria Joseph, approached the petitioner on 5-12-1960 and complained of theft of jewels worth about Rs. 1,500/- which appears to have taken place in his house on 8-9-1960. The said Mr. Skaria Joseph also appears to have mentioned the person whom he suspects to be responsible for the theft. It is also seen that the said complainant appears to have informed the petitioner, that the Sub Inspector of Police at Thaliparamba, has not taken any action on the complaint presented by him on 8-9-1960. But ultimately, it is seen that the complainant appears to have given a written complaint, dated 5-12-1960, but actually given to the petitioner on 6-12-1960.
(3.)According to the prosecution, the offences made out on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint, had to be registered under S.380, 411 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner gave a wrong direction to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thaliparamba, to register the case only under S.411, I. P. C. instead of under S.380 and 461 also.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.