Ensure sensitisation of subordinate police officials and expeditious trial of Delhi riots cases, says court
New Delhi: A Delhi court has recently directed the city police to ensure sensitisation of subordinate police officials and expeditious trial of cases concerning the N-E Delhi riots.
According to legal news website Live Law, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramesh Kumar, North East district of the Karkardooma Court passed the order while setting aside an order passed by the CMM which had imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on Delhi Police.
The CMM had observed that the delay in moving an application regarding segregation of complaint in a riots case caused undue harassment to the accused persons, two of whom were in judicial custody.
Observing that repeated directions in riots cases had fallen on deaf ears of the Senior police officials, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Arun Kumar Garg had, vide order dated October 12, directed the Commissioner of Police to furnish a detailed report regarding steps taken by him to ensure proper investigation or prosecution of riots cases and their expeditious trial.
Challenging the said order, a revision petition was filed by SHO, Police Station, Bhajanpura.
While setting aside the said order including directions given to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and Secretary (Home), Union of India, the Court ordered thus: "However, concerned DCP is directed to ensure expeditious trial of the cases pertaining to the North East riots and sensitize subordinates police officials, so that, there is no delay in trial of cases pertaining to North East riots. With these observation, the revision petition is disposed
of."
It added: "In the present matter, it is clear that the ld. Trial Court granted adjournment for compliance of the order of the ld. Sessions Court, however, cost was imposed on the State on account of delay in moving appropriate application by the IO. Since, IO was supposed to comply with the direction of the ld. Sessions Court, I am of the considered opinion that the imposition of cost of Rs 25,000 is not justified."
