Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, November 12
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked Directors-General of Police of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh to specify whether surveillance registers, carrying names of "bad characters", are being reviewed continuously.
The direction came after Justice Amol Rattan Singh was told that the High Court had in 2005 ordered the forwarding of copies of its order to the police chiefs of the two states and the UT for further transmission to the district police chiefs, with a direction to re-examine the surveillance registers maintained in the police stations. The High Court had then expressed hope that the process would be completed within two months.
Taking a note of the submissions in this regard by advocate Navkiran Singh, Justice Amol Rattan Singh also asked the DGPs to state whether the direction issued by the Division Bench 15 years ago had been complied with. The matter was brought to the High Court's notice after Jaswinder Singh filed a petition against the State of Punjab and other respondents. Appearing on his behalf, Navkiran Singh contended that the petitioner's name appeared in a surveillance register maintained at the Rawalpindi police station in Kapurthala district.
Navkiran Singh contended that the petitioner was acquitted more than 30 years ago in the criminal cases registered against him. As such, the entry in the surveillance register, showing him to be a bad character even today, was illegal.
Issuing a notice of motion to the state and other respondents, Justice Amol Rattan Singh also directed the Kapurthala SSP to file own affidavit in response to the petition. The officer was directed to specifically state as to why the petitioner's name continued to be in the surveillance register, in view of the contentions raised by his counsel. The case will now come up in November last week.
File affidavit, SSP told
- Issuing a notice of motion to the state and other respondents, Justice Amol Rattan Singh directed Kapurthala SSP to file own affidavit in response to the petition
- The officer was directed to specifically state as to why the petitioner's name continued to be in the surveillance register, in view of the contentions raised by his counsel
from The Tribune https://ift.tt/3eSPqa0
No comments:
Post a Comment