Call details of five delhi police officials preserved in a false arms act case: Ravi Drall Advocate, Criminal Lawyer inTis Hazari Court, Delhi.
Criminal Lawyer in Tis hazari Court, Delhi.
Call details of five delhi police officials saved in a false arms act case weherein a innocent person was falsely implicated by police officials in Paschim Vihar Police station. Advocate Ravi Drall had filed a application for preservation of Call Details of Police officials but the application was dismissed by Ld. MM, Tis Hazari court thereafter a revision was filed before Sessions court and the CDR of police officials was preserved which will prove the innocence of accused.
Implication of an innocent person in criminal case by fabricating evidences by police officials in a false case is not something new. False implication of someone in a criminal case not only put on stake his Fundaments Rights but it further leads to slip of real culprit from Justice which causes miscarrige of Justice.
The word ‘Miscarriage’ means ‘Failure’ whereas ‘Justice’ means ‘Just or righteous’. Miscarriage of Justice means when there is a failure by the Judicial System to be right or just.
Right from the Historical times to the present times the concept of wrongful conviction is in Trend. The scenario hasn’t been much changed even after Independence. However, there are enormous cases related to Miscarriage of Justice but some of them attained worldwide attention. Some of them are as follows:
Hussainara Khatoon &Ors vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar2: This is a very famous case of the release of wrong convicts. A writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the release of several undertrial prisoners of Bihar. It was observed that many prisoners have been detained for a longer period than prescribed. The apex court ordered the release of several such prisoners. This case shows how the concept of a miscarriage of Justice is still prevalent in the Judicial system and the worst sufferer of them are poor people.
Mohammad Nisaruddin Case4: In this case, a 19-year-old boy was booked under the Terrorist and Disruptive Act (TADA). Ajmer Court sentenced him to Life Imprisonment. The issue came before the Supreme Court. Apex Court in May 2016 acquitted him from all charges and set aside his sentence of Life imprisonment. The young boy spent his 23 years of life in jail framed under false charges. Interestingly, he was not awarded any compensation by the Court.
Case Title : Ajay Kumar Agarwal v Union Territory of JK and Ors., Objective Of Investigation Is To Unearth Truth, IO Can’t Throw Out Material Evidence Produced By Accused By Merely Citing S.91 CrPC: J&K&L High Court, While dealing with Section 91 CrPC, the court observed that Section 91 of the Code when interpreted it in the light of Article 20 of the Constitution of India makes it clear that the Officer In-charge of Police Station will be well within its rights to direct a person including an accused to attend and produce any document or other thing as he considers necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation subject only to the condition that such document or thing should not be incriminating to the accused.
The bench further observed that there is nothing in Section 91, which prohibits or puts any embargo or clog on the powers of the In-charge of a Police Station to summon the accused to attend and produce a document or thing which is not incriminatory to the accused, but may be necessary or desirable for the purposes of investigation of the offence.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) on Friday answered several significant questions related to Section 91 of CrPC which deals with Summons to produce documents or other things. Essentially, the Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sunita Yadav examined as to when can an accused as also a victim, invoke this Section during a criminal proceedingānd came up with the following conclusion:
- An accused cannot invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of the investigation.
- However, an accused can invoke Section 91 on and after the filing of the charge sheet.
- Section 91 can also be invoked by the other stakeholders i.e. victim and also the prosecution.
- The court can also invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. suo moto.
- All the above invocation by any stakeholder is subject to satisfaction of the Court about desirability and necessity of the document sought to be produced
Advocate Ravi Drall has represented clients in cases related to Anticipatory, regular Bails, Acquittal, Revisions, Appeals, Writs, PIL’s in cases of MCOCA, Cheating, Fraud, Murder, Attempt to murder, Extortion, Dacoity, Sexual Offences, Suicide, Narcotic and Drugs, Revenue and Customs Criminal Cases, Economic Offences, Arms and Weapons, Matrimonial, Domestic Violence, Constitutional Law, Negligence, and have availed favourable decisions from the courts. It is always advisable to seek for the best professional legal advise in case of criminal law as it involves intricate complexities and a small fact lead to an acquittal.
Best lawyer in delhi best criminal lawyer bail lawyer best lawyer in tis hazari court best lawyer in rohini court best lawyer in patiala house court best matrimonial lawyer. best advocate in delhi best criminal advocate best matrimonial advocate best ndps