Delhi Court summons IO in relation to CAA protests requiring him to produce footage of Police raiding the office of Advocate Pracha

OVERVIEW

• An Investigating Officer (IO) has been brought by the Patiala House Court on 25th December, associated with cases emerging out of the Delhi riots over the CAA,

· The court asked him to produce the whole video footage of an inquiry directed by the Delhi Police at the office of an advocate appearing in the matter.

• An application made by advocate Mehmood Pracha looking for the conservation of duplicates of the video film of the assaults led by Delhi police at his office on Thursday came up with an order by Duty Metropolitan Magistrate Anshul Singhal, Patiala House Court.

• Additionally, Advocate Pracha said that he has moved an application under segments 165(5) and 156(3) of the CrPC before the trial court.

• He presented that he has recorded an application under section 93 CrPC before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the IO was approached to document an answer on the said application and the issue was set up before the Duty MM for now.

• He also presented that he has recorded an application under section 93 CrPC before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the IO was approached to document an answer on the said application and the issue was set up before the Duty MM for now.

WHAT IS SECTION 165(5) AND 156(3) OF CRPC

• SECTION 165(5) -Copies of any record made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall forthwith be sent to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and the owner or occupier of the place searched shall, on the application, be furnished, free of cost, with a copy of the same by the Magistrate.

• SECTION 156(3)-Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned.

POINTS BEFORE THE BENCH

• Segment 165(5) recommends that in case search by a police officer, duplicates of any record made will forthwith be Sent to the closest Magistrate engaged to take comprehension of the offence, and the proprietor or occupier of the spot looked will on the application, be furnished, free of cost, with a copy of the same by the Magistrate.

• The Assistant Ahlmad of the Court has detailed that he has not gotten any record from the Court of the CMM. He moreover says that he has attempted to contact the reader of the Court of the CMM, however, has not gotten any reaction.

• It was addressed to the court on 24th December by the same candidate that his associate has spoken telephonically with the Ahlmad of the Court of the CMM and he has expressed that the application has been shipped off the court of the Duty MM yesterday itself through the Dak peon.

• Pracha further implied the Court that the inquiry was led at his office from 12 early afternoon on December 24 till 3 AM on December 25 and as per the arrangements of area 165 CrPC, Volume III, Chapter II, Part A, Rule 14 and 16, the IO ought to have suggested forthwith the search and the held onto articles to the concerned Magistrate.

• In any case, he presented that the equivalent has not been done so therefore, he has recorded the above application under segment 165(5). He told the court that the whole search was video graphed according to the Court request of December 22. He presented that he is entitled to a duplicate of the video film.

COURT's ORDER

• As the applicant has additionally expressed that one Mr Rajiv and the IO has threatened him that they will put forth a false claim against them. In like manner, the applicant has recorded an application under segment 156(3) CrPC for ceaseless checking of the case.

• The Duty MM at that point continued to guide that the IO record answer to the application under segment 165(5) CrPC by 27th December.

• The IO is additionally coordinated to stay present in the Court alongside the whole video film of any search directed by him on the workplace premises of the applicant.

• The Judge further required the IO to record a status report regarding one of the cases by January 5.

DO YOU THINK THEFINDINGS PRESENTED BEFORE COURT WERE ADMISSIBLE?

MENTION YOUR VIEWS IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!