E-Paper
Charges framed against Chandigarh Police inspector for insulting court
Appearing before the court of judicial magistrate in April, inspector Amanjot Singh had allegedly obstructed the judge from discharging his judicial function, and used unacceptable words and gestures
Nearly eight months after inspector Amanjot Singh was accused of knowingly disobeying court directions, using intemperate language in court and causing obstructions, the court of the chief judicial magistrate (CJM) on Friday framed charges against him.
The court of CJM Dr Aman Inder Singh Sandhu observed that on April 14, 2022, the accused cop had appeared in the court of judicial magistrate Bharat without proper uniform, obstructed the judge from discharging his judicial function, and used unacceptable words and gestures towards the court to cause intentional insult and further interrupt judicial functioning of the court.
The charges have been framed under Sections 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 228 (intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and 166A (whoever, being a public servant knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence) of the Indian Penal Code.
The trial against Amanjot, who is posted in the operation cell of Chandigarh Police in Sector 26, will begin on January 9, 2023, as he has pleaded not guilty.
Had produced an extortion, Arms Act case accused in court
The case concerns an incident on April 14, when a team of the operation cell had produced an extortion and Arms Act case accused before judicial magistrate Bharat after four days of police remand. The accused, Gagangdeep, was booked at the Sector-26 police station on March 16, 2022.
An application for sending him in judicial custody was moved by ASI Surjit Singh of the operation cell that was signed by inspector Amanjot.
Taking up the application, the court had asked the inspector to appear in person. He turned up soon after, but in a civil dress. The complaint by judicial magistrate Bharat said when checked by court about not wearing uniform, the inspector raised his voice in an agitative manner and used intemperate language not befitting of a public servant.
Questioning the authority of the court, he had stated in unacceptable words that even the court and the public prosecutor were not in uniform.
The magistrate further said the inspector obstructed him from discharging the judicial function by using intemperate language and gestures towards the court, and caused intentional insult or interruption to the magistrate while sitting in a judicial proceedings.
The court said when the inspector was asked to produce the police zimnis (diaries) from April 10 to 13 as per mandate, he disobeyed the order and in a disrespectful manner refused to show it.
The court of judicial magistrate had also issued a show-cause notice to the inspector on why legal action under the Contempt of Court Act should not be taken against him, and his response was “found to be evasive, vague and having a tendency to scandalise the functioning of the court”, the complaint had added.
Application for termination of proceedings dismissed
Meanwhile, the court of CJM also dismissed Amanjot’s application for termination of proceedings.
The inspector had submitted an application through his counsel for termination of proceeding on the grounds of want of sanction, as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 69 of the Punjab Police Act.
The court observed that perusal of the CrPC section left no doubt that it will be applicable only where the public servant was not removable, save by or with the sanction of the government. It also provided that it will apply where alleged offence is committed by the public servant in discharge of his official duties.
The court observed that the accused’s application didn’t mention anywhere that he cannot be removed except by or with the sanction of the government, and unruly and disrespectful behaviour in court cannot be taken to be in discharge of official duties.
The court further observed that the bar to prosecute a police officer without notice under Section 69 of the Punjab Police Act extended only to acts done by public servant in good faith or done in pursuance of the act.
“Once again, it will be seen that the acts complained of...can by no stretch of imagination be termed as act done in good faith,” the court observed, while dismissing the application.
