Sunday, November 24News and updates from Kashmir

‘The Court is not a post office’, Srinagar Judge directs DO Humhama to remain present before court

Observing that the report submitted by DO Humhama “spoke of his inefficiency and helplessness”, Srinagar Court has directed Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Budgam to investigate the matter himself.

According to KNS, after hearing advocate Mir Naveed Gul who represented complainant in the case, Court of 2nd Additional Munsiff presided over by Shahber Ayaz, DO Police Station Humhama was directed to conduct an investigation in the matter and file a report of the same.

Court said that the report was received by this court, “but the report spoke of nothing except for the inefficiency of the DO concerned.”

It observed that subsequently SSP Budgam is directed to conduct an investigation into the matter and file report of the same before the court by or before April 18.

“SSP Budgam delegated the direction of this court to DO Humhama to conduct investigation in the matter. DO Humhama filed report and again spoke of his inefficiency and helplessness,” the court said.

It further observed that under Section 202 of CrPC, the person who is entrusted with any investigation cannot delegate his powers to any other person but in the instant case SSP Budgam has done the same and derailed from the scope of provisions of law.

“It is contempt and complete inefficiency on part of the DO and SSP concerned that they have failed to comply with the orders of this court because of the reasons best known to him,” the court said.

Court added that if Police fail to comply the orders of the court, the same raises fingers on the police agency and amount to miscarriage of justice.

“If the Majesty of law is taken for a ride, the same shall result in loosing of faith in Judiciary and Police agency by a common man. The court is not a post office and cannot be a mute spectator,” the court said.

“DO Humhama shall remain personally present before this court on next date of hearing and explain why action not be taken against him for disobeying the court,” the court said.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *