Former Delhi Police constable fails to get benefit of Centre’s May 21 notification

Former Delhi Police constable fails to get benefit of Centre’s May 21 notification

New Delhi: A former Delhi Police constable, who tried to take benefit of the Centre’s May 21 notification on jurisdiction of ACB, was unsuccessful in his efforts after Delhi High Court rejected his appeal against his conviction in a graft case, the second such case in less than a week.  

Prem Chand, who was convicted in 2005 in the corruption case lodged in 1998, had moved the court claiming that the May 21 notification, taking away power of Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) of Delhi government to prosecute policemen, has retrospective effect.

Justice Siddharth Mridul, however, rejected the plea on two grounds – one, that he cannot re-agitate an issue which he had contested all the way to the Supreme Court unsuccessfully and two, things done “before supersession” of the 1998 notification by the latest one “cannot be disturbed or reopened”.

On May 25, the high court had dismissed the bail application of a head constable who was arrested by the ACB in a corruption case. The judges disallowed Anil Kumar’s bail application saying his submission that ACB does not have the competence or jurisdiction to act on the complaint of the complainant is rejected.

Chand was prosecuted on the basis of the 1998 notification of the Centre according to which the Delhi government or LG could proceed against police personnel.  The court noted that May 21 notification stipulates that “things done before the supersession of the earlier (1998) notification cannot be disturbed or reopened”.

“In my view the petitioner cannot be permitted to negate the entire process of law by seeking to question his conviction at this belated stage. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed,” the court said.

It further said, “The present petition appears to be an attempt to over reach the judicial process and is resultantly an abuse thereof. The notification relied upon by the petitioner itself entirely stipulates that things done before the supersession of the earlier notification cannot be disturbed or reopened.”

New Delhi: A former Delhi Police constable, who tried to take benefit of the Centre’s May 21 notification on jurisdiction of ACB, was unsuccessful in his efforts after Delhi High Court rejected his appeal against his conviction in a graft case, the second such case in less than a week.  

Prem Chand, who was convicted in 2005 in the corruption case lodged in 1998, had moved the court claiming that the May 21 notification, taking away power of Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) of Delhi government to prosecute policemen, has retrospective effect.

Justice Siddharth Mridul, however, rejected the plea on two grounds – one, that he cannot re-agitate an issue which he had contested all the way to the Supreme Court unsuccessfully and two, things done “before supersession” of the 1998 notification by the latest one “cannot be disturbed or reopened”.

On May 25, the high court had dismissed the bail application of a head constable who was arrested by the ACB in a corruption case. The judges disallowed Anil Kumar’s bail application saying his submission that ACB does not have the competence or jurisdiction to act on the complaint of the complainant is rejected.

Chand was prosecuted on the basis of the 1998 notification of the Centre according to which the Delhi government or LG could proceed against police personnel.  The court noted that May 21 notification stipulates that “things done before the supersession of the earlier (1998) notification cannot be disturbed or reopened”.

“In my view the petitioner cannot be permitted to negate the entire process of law by seeking to question his conviction at this belated stage. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed,” the court said.

It further said, “The present petition appears to be an attempt to over reach the judicial process and is resultantly an abuse thereof. The notification relied upon by the petitioner itself entirely stipulates that things done before the supersession of the earlier notification cannot be disturbed or reopened.”

http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/former-delhi-police-constable-fails-to-get-benefit-of-centre-51110.html

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s