Just like the British rule, law applies differently in the matters of criminal prosecution in the Congress ruled States.This is what RTI activist Anil Galgali learnt from the replies received under the RTI Act by Mumbai Police. While the Mumbai Police straight away preferred to prosecute independent MLA Bachchu Kadu, they chose to act in a completely contradictory manner in the matter of Congress MLA Kripashankar Singh. Assembly Speaker denied permission to prosecute Krupashankar Singh recently.
RTI Activists Anil Galgali ask to the Mumbai Police that how many cases they proceed prosecute after received permission, without permission and after permission from the Assembly Speaker. In a reply by Marine Drive Police Station, Senior Police Inspector admit that they straight away preferred to prosecute independent MLA Bachchu Kadu, in an offence registered at the Marine Drive Police Station under sections 332, 353 of the I.P.C without permission from Assembly Speaker.
The act of MLA Kadu was not in the discharge of his official duty as it amounted to assaulting a Government servant. The same principle should have been applied in the case of MLA Kripashankar Singh, whose alleged act of amassing disproportionate wealth does not fall in the purview of ‘discharge of duty’. Said Galgali.
A catena of judgments by the Higher Judiciary confers sufficient liberty upon the investigating agencies to prosecute Public Servants without sanction. In the case of MLA Kripashankar Singh, the Bombay High Court division bench headed by CJ Mohit Shah, had delivered an in-depth verdict indicting Singh along with his family members for amassing unaccounted wealth exceeding crores of rupees. The Apex Court too turning down Singh’s plea against the Bombay High Court order, had directed the SIT headed by the Mumbai Police Commissioner to proceed with prosecution of Singh and others.
It now remains to be seen whether the Mumbai Police would proceed against the culprits sans this rejection of sanction by the Assembly Speaker, which Galgali suspects is an outcome of Kripashankar’s proximity with Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan and leaders across the party lines. “The doctrine of ‘law of equality’ should be adhered to by the Mumbai Police” feels Galgali.
RTI Activists Anil Galgali ask to the Mumbai Police that how many cases they proceed prosecute after received permission, without permission and after permission from the Assembly Speaker. In a reply by Marine Drive Police Station, Senior Police Inspector admit that they straight away preferred to prosecute independent MLA Bachchu Kadu, in an offence registered at the Marine Drive Police Station under sections 332, 353 of the I.P.C without permission from Assembly Speaker.
The act of MLA Kadu was not in the discharge of his official duty as it amounted to assaulting a Government servant. The same principle should have been applied in the case of MLA Kripashankar Singh, whose alleged act of amassing disproportionate wealth does not fall in the purview of ‘discharge of duty’. Said Galgali.
A catena of judgments by the Higher Judiciary confers sufficient liberty upon the investigating agencies to prosecute Public Servants without sanction. In the case of MLA Kripashankar Singh, the Bombay High Court division bench headed by CJ Mohit Shah, had delivered an in-depth verdict indicting Singh along with his family members for amassing unaccounted wealth exceeding crores of rupees. The Apex Court too turning down Singh’s plea against the Bombay High Court order, had directed the SIT headed by the Mumbai Police Commissioner to proceed with prosecution of Singh and others.
It now remains to be seen whether the Mumbai Police would proceed against the culprits sans this rejection of sanction by the Assembly Speaker, which Galgali suspects is an outcome of Kripashankar’s proximity with Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan and leaders across the party lines. “The doctrine of ‘law of equality’ should be adhered to by the Mumbai Police” feels Galgali.
No comments:
Post a Comment