New Delhi: In three separate cases related to the Northeast Delhi riots, a city court fell heavily by imposing Delhi police finance, which will be deducted from the responsible police salary, because it looked for recurrent suspension or did not supply a copy of CCTV recordings to be accused.
The court has on September 25 also imposed a fine of the same number in Delhi police for failing to appear before the delay even though there was a repeat order.
The court directed a fine to be saved to the Prime Minister’s assistance.
In two cases, Metropolitan Magistrate Head Arun Kumar Garg imposed a fine of RS 5,000 as a special public prosecutor, representing the police, looking for a delay for responsible arguments.
The court directed Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal to order an investigation to improve responsibility for the imposition of costs and to order a reduction in the salaries of responsible officers.
“The delay allows the cost of Rs 5,000 to be deposited by the state with the Prime Minister’s assistance Imposing costs and to order a reduction in costs and to order these costs from the salary of responsible officers, “said the judge in the order.
In another case, the court imposed the cost of Rs 5,000 in an investigative officer for failing to supply a copy of CCTV footage from the alleged incident to the defendant even more than six months.
It directs IO to supply a copy of the record to all the defendants within seven days with the right recognition.
The instructions occurred after the investigative officer submitted that he had not given the recording to the defendant and looked for a delay for a week for the same thing.
“The need note revealed that the U / S 207 application (police report supply for accused) CRPC has been transferred on behalf of Shahzad who was accused of looking for CCTV record supply and IO had been looking for time to submit a reply from the application.
This was submitted by the investigative officer that Sho, as well as The ACP is concerned, has submitted a reply to the application mentioned above which is looking for more time to supply a copy of CCTV footage, “said the court in order.