Cop asked to pay Rs 50,000 fine
THE LUCKNOW Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on Suresh Chandra Sharma, former station officer of Maurawan police station in district Unnao, in a contempt of court case.Updated: Sep 01, 2006 11:13 IST
THE LUCKNOW Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on Suresh Chandra Sharma, former station officer of Maurawan police station in district Unnao, in a contempt of court case.
He will go to jail in case he fails to pay the fine to the petitioner by September 25, the next date of the hearing.
Justice SK Singh passed the order on a contempt petition filed by Rakesh Kumar. The court has directed the police officer to comply with the orders within three weeks.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted before the court that the petitioner had been named in a loot case in June 2001. He filed a petition before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and prayed for a stay on his arrest. The court passed an order in his favour on July 1, 2001 and directed the Maurawan police not to arrest him.
The petitioner went to the police station on July 7, 2001 along with the court order but the police officer paid no heed to the court order and arrested him.
He was produced before the magistrate on July 9 who sent him to jail. He was freed from jail on July 24, 2001.
The petitioner then filed a contempt case against the police officer. He also submitted before the court that the officer had also used disrespectful language for the court.
The SO was summoned for an explanation as to why he should not be punished for not carrying out the order of the court. The officer appeared in the court and feigned ignorance about the court order.
The documents, however, proved that he had the knowledge of the order and had intentionally arrested the petitioner.
Having no other option, he tendered an unconditional apology before the court, which observed that the officer deserved a fine to be given to the petitioner, who had to remain in illegal detention because of the officer.
First Published: Sep 01, 2006 11:13 IST