The Telangana High Court took a serious view of a magistrate court authorising the detention of an accused person without recording the reasons for doing so, and issued a showcause notice to the Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate of Peddapalli, asking why action should not be taken on the allegations of divesting judicial functions.The High Court also issued notices to Peddapalli inspector Kondapaka Praveen Kumar and sub-inspector J. Lakshman Rao to explain by March 19 why departmental action and contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them for violating the law in detaining an accused.Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy issued the notices a few days ago, while dealing a petition filed by Kolipaka Krishna, on whom the Peddapalli police had registered case on charges of restraining others and using criminal force against a public servant, which would attract maximum punishment for two years.The police arrested Krishna on January 31 and produced before the magistrate court which on the same day sent him to judicial remand. The petitioner alleged that the police had not followed the procedure in arresting him like issuing a notice, as the sentence prescribed the alleged crime was less than seven years, and the magistrate had violated the guidelines specified by the Supreme Court in accepting the detention and sending him to judicial remand.His counsel told the High Court that the Supreme Court in the ‘Satender Kumar Antil’ had specifically noted that the police officer shall forward the checklist duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the magistrate for further detention. The magistrate shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer and only after recording satisfaction shall authorise detention.The apex court said that failure to comply with the directions shall render the police officers concerned liable for departmental action as well as punishment for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction. The apex court also ruled the judicial magistrate authorising detention without recording reasons shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court. After perusing the records, Justice Reddy came to opinion that the prima facie, the remand of Krishna was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Source link
