You may also like...
-
On perusal of the submissions, justice S S Sundar observed that Dharmar stood by his final report closing the counter case as mistake of fact as the case was a false one. The judge said that his action cannot be taken as a serious misconduct. The judge said the petitioner had explained to the second and third charges against him by stating that the deputy superintendent of police asked him not to go to the village due to emotional turbulence in the village after the murder. “It is a normal behaviour of any person from the victim’s family to complain about the inaction or inefficiency against the police official if something big happens. When serious charges are framed against the investigation officer alleging dereliction of duty, the allegations should be specific. In the present case, the allegations are too remote,” observed the judge.
by Sekar Reporter · Published June 17, 2020
-
[11/9, 12:16] RUPERT Mhc Advt: Ex-Minister Velumani’s case – Preliminary Inquiry Report is an off shot of SC judgment in Sirajjudin case made way back in 1972. In order to commence a Preliminary Inquiry it does not mandate for FIR. If the outcome of the Preliminary Inquiry Report manifest that no case has been made out the report need not be submitted before the Special Court dealing in PC Act but it is within the Police department where the Investigating Officer reports to his immediate superior officer and routed to the officer who is monitoring the inquiry. It depends upon case to case. When the Investigating Officer conducting the Preliminary Inquiry finds that a prima facie case has been made out then he will submit his report to his superiors and he is empowered to register the FIR and an investigation can be conducted in depth. It appears to the DMK Govt that the Investigating Officer during the regime of AIADMK Govt had tailored his report to bail out the ex-Minister Velumani from the clutches of law and the Preliminary Inquiry Report is all a farce and requires a detail investigation and accordingly DAVC has registered the FIR. The provisions of the CrPC do not empower anyone to extend the period within which the investigation must be completed and no Court either directly or indirectly can extend such period. When the DAVC has registered the FIR automatically the relief sought by Arapore Iyyakam and RS Barathi PILWP is liable to be disposed off on that ground since their agitation in a way is met by registration of the FIR. The stand taken by AG Shanmugasundram before the CJ Bench is correct in law. Final Report is the outcome of the investigation report and has to be filed before the Court to be filed with Preliminary Inquiry Report if there is. In Sirajjudin case judgment of SC in the matter of PC Act it is a must, FIR, Statement of Witnesses, Material Object Seizure Mahazar and its properties etc and the Trial Court will frame charges based on above material furnished by Police by their Final Report and that is Charge Sheet. [11/9, 12:18] Sekarreporter1: 👍🏾
by Sekar Reporter · Published November 9, 2021
-
https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1722267851036459050?t=9EQSPla43p0vQX7kdVRMRA&s=08 Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s request for promotion for the purpose of enhancing his retirement benefits. Since the petitioner has already retired from service, in the event of considering the petitioner’s request for promotion, it can only be considered as a notional promotion and not as an actual promotion. No costs. 17.10.2023 Index : Yes Internet : Yes Speaking Neutral Citation : Yes gsk R.N.MANJULA , J. gsk To 1.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), TANGEDCO, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 2.The Superintending Engineer, Tiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Tiruvannamalai District. W.P.No.6294 of 2021 17.10.2023 of 10
by Sekar Reporter · Published November 8, 2023