Cops misusing crime sheet, says HC
They Declared Accused As Rowdies Sans Evidence
Srikkanth.D@timesgroup.com
Madurai:27.09.2018
Observing that there was a general pattern adopted by the state police to retain names of persons in a crime sheet, branding them rowdies without any justifiable reasons, the Madurai bench of the Madras high court has warned Tamil Nadu police that in future, if the court comes across such cases, victims will be granted compensation recovered from the salary of the police official concerned.
“Branding a person a history-sheeter taints the name and image of the person. The entire purpose of maintaining a crime sheet is to ensure public peace. However, it should be balanced with the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen,” Justice N Anand Venkatesh said.
The court made the observation while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the retention of names in history sheets and seeking to quash the same.
According to standing orders to police, a history sheet is retained for two years in case of persons convicted of offences. In case of retention after two years, orders of an officer above the rank of deputy superintendent of police or assistant superintendent of police must be taken.
In all the petitions, the court noticed that the petitioners were neither convicted for the offences they have been booked under nor were involved in any offence for several years. Despite this, police had retained their names in the crime sheet without any basis.
The court said that it is also the duty of the police to keep reviewing the history sheet to ensure that the persons who are no longer required to be retained in the list are removed.
The court also noticed the pattern wherein police have registered First Information Reports (FIRs) under Sections 109 (security for good behaviour from suspected persons) and 110 ( security for good behaviour from habitual offenders) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) just to open the history sheet and to justify the continuance of their names in the history sheet.
Thus, mere registration of FIR under these sections is not justified, the court said.
In all the petitions, the court noticed that the petitioners were neither convicted for the offences they have been booked under nor were involved in any offence for several years. Despite this, police had retained their names
They Declared Accused As Rowdies Sans Evidence
Srikkanth.D@timesgroup.com
Madurai:27.09.2018
Observing that there was a general pattern adopted by the state police to retain names of persons in a crime sheet, branding them rowdies without any justifiable reasons, the Madurai bench of the Madras high court has warned Tamil Nadu police that in future, if the court comes across such cases, victims will be granted compensation recovered from the salary of the police official concerned.
“Branding a person a history-sheeter taints the name and image of the person. The entire purpose of maintaining a crime sheet is to ensure public peace. However, it should be balanced with the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen,” Justice N Anand Venkatesh said.
The court made the observation while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the retention of names in history sheets and seeking to quash the same.
According to standing orders to police, a history sheet is retained for two years in case of persons convicted of offences. In case of retention after two years, orders of an officer above the rank of deputy superintendent of police or assistant superintendent of police must be taken.
In all the petitions, the court noticed that the petitioners were neither convicted for the offences they have been booked under nor were involved in any offence for several years. Despite this, police had retained their names in the crime sheet without any basis.
The court said that it is also the duty of the police to keep reviewing the history sheet to ensure that the persons who are no longer required to be retained in the list are removed.
The court also noticed the pattern wherein police have registered First Information Reports (FIRs) under Sections 109 (security for good behaviour from suspected persons) and 110 ( security for good behaviour from habitual offenders) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) just to open the history sheet and to justify the continuance of their names in the history sheet.
Thus, mere registration of FIR under these sections is not justified, the court said.
In all the petitions, the court noticed that the petitioners were neither convicted for the offences they have been booked under nor were involved in any offence for several years. Despite this, police had retained their names
No comments:
Post a Comment