A court asked a Delhi police official to tender an apology to a magistrate with an undertaking to be careful in discharging his duties in future.<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge Ramesh Kumar gave the order, waiving a fine of Rs 10,000 imposed on Sub-Inspector Bal Kishan in June this year by the magisterial court, which had ordered deduction of the sum from his salary for his failure to execute a non-bailable warrant in a case lodged Mukherjee Nagar police station in 2002 under the Arms Act.<\/p>\n
On the SI’s appeal, the sessions court modified the order considering that the SI had misplaced the NBW and his failure to execute it was “not deliberate.”<\/p>\n
“The concerned revisionist (Kishan) is directed to be careful in future regarding the processes issued by courts.<\/p>\n
According to ASJ, “Since NBW was misplaced by him, the revisionist is directed to furnish an apology before the trial court with an ‘undertaking’ that he shall be careful in future regarding the processes received by him for the purpose of execution.”<\/p>\n
During the hearing on revision petition, Kishan’s counsel had told the sessions court that his client was the IO of the case and had conducted the probe and had filed a charge sheet before the magisterial court.<\/p>\n
The counsel said the NBW issued against the accused was given to Kishan but the same could not be executed as it was misplaced. He added the magistrate passed the order against the SI without hearing him.<\/p>\n
The state, however, had sought dismissal of Kishan’s plea before the sessions court saying the magistrate had rightly passed both the orders against him on not returning the NBW issued against the accused.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A court asked a Delhi police official to tender an apology to a magistrate with an undertaking to be careful in discharging his duties in future. Additional Sessions Judge Ramesh Kumar gave the order, waiving a fine of Rs 10,000 imposed on Sub-Inspector Bal Kishan in June this year by the magisterial court, which had […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":21,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[19333],"class_list":["post-24875","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-top-law-news","tag-additional-sessions-judge-ramesh-kumar"],"yoast_head":"\n