Sh. Dharampal Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors: Through on 9 August, 2011
In support of the aforesaid argument, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Yogi Nath D. Bagde (supra) and Delhi High Court in Ram Phal Singh Rana (supra). It is true that the charge against the applicant has two aspects (1) he was instructed by the SHO and Inspector of Law & Order to move an application in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate for the interrogation of the accused persons and to record their disclosure statements and (2) he was required to move an application for the TIP of the accused so as to obtain their police custody remand but instead of doing so, he moved an application to the court on his own for the discharge of the accused and accepting that request the court released them. According to the Enquiry Officer, it has been proved during the enquiry to the extent that the applicant did not move an application for judicial TIP of the accused persons and got them discharged on the same day of their formal arrest. In other words, the Enquiry Officer did not prove the first part of the charge that the applicant did not move an application for the interrogation of the accused persons and to record their disclosure statements. The applicants counsel has, therefore, contended that the charge against the applicant was only partly proved.