LI Network
Published on: February 5, 2024 at 11:50 IST
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court emphasized that under Section 29 of the UP Police Act, the same Magistrate cannot act as both a witness and a judge in proceedings initiated against the SHO (Inspector In-Charger).
The Court clarified that penalties for neglect of duties by a police officer under this section, including willful breach or neglect of any law or lawful order, may result in penalties such as imprisonment or loss of pay.
Section 29 of the UP Police Act outlines penalties for police officers’ neglect of duties, and the court observed that Regulations 484 and 486 of the UP Police Regulations provide the procedure for conducting an inquiry under this section.
According to Regulation 484, only the District Magistrate can handle such complaints, and if a Magistrate other than the District Magistrate receives the complaint, it should be reported to the District Magistrate.
Regulation 486 specifies that if a Magistrate takes notice of the matter, the inquiry must be conducted by another Magistrate after notifying the officer involved.
The case in question involved the setting aside of an order by a Magistrate directing the registration of an FIR against SHO Kotwali Mankapur, Gonda, under Section 406 IPC with the aim of imposing penalties under Section 29 of the UP Police Act.
The petitioner argued that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by registering a case against the SHO without specifying the applicable law, and contended that the case should have been referred to the District Magistrate, Gonda, as the competent authority for action under Section 29 of the UP Police Act.
The High Court agreed with the petitioner, stating that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 29 of the Police Act read with the relevant regulations.
The Court set aside the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, directing that the case be heard by the competent authority, the District Magistrate, Gonda.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Saroj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. – 414 of 2024].'”