Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.81 seconds)
Debasish Chakraborty vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 15 November, 2017 cites

Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18 December, 1996

Learned Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2 contended that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to assault by the petitioner and he was accordingly treated at Bangur hospital on 15.12.2013. Learned Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no.2 further contended that the opposite party no.2 was waiting for action against the petitioner by his superiors but the superiors did not take any action against the petitioner and that is why there was delay in filing such petition of complaint against the petitioner. It is further contended that the CCTV footage of Jadavpur police station will justify such assault on the person of opposite party no.2 by the petitioner. Learned Advocate for opposite party no.2 has also relied on a decision reported in 2015(8) SCC 744 (D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal) and has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 33 and 34 of the said decision, wherein the Hon'ble Court has expressed that the states would install CCTV cameras in all the police stations in a phased manner depending upon the nature and the extent of violation and the states would install CCTV cameras in prison also.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 2221 - K Singh - Full Document

D T Virupakshappa vs C Subash on 27 April, 2015

It is therefore apparent from the materials on record as well as from the submissions of learned Advocates that the opposite party no.2 has filed a petition of complaint against the petitioner on the ground that he was subjected to torture during his custody in connection with a criminal case. The factual aspect, as transpires in the decision of D. Birpakkho (Supra), reveals that the appellant was allegedly assaulted and detained in police station for some time to get a confession from him to the effect that he was involved in a murder case and accordingly learned Magistrate took cognizance, registered the case and issued summons to the appellant under Section 323 and other Sections of Indian Penal Code. High Court declined to interfere with such order of learned Magistrate under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hon'ble Apex Court held that the alleged conduct has an essential connection with the discharge of the official duty. Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case, the Government servant accused of an offence, which is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, the previous sanction is necessary. The magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without the previous sanction of the State Government.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 125 - Full Document
1