The GR asked for action against erring officers due to whom cases were lost in court and accused acquitted
The State information commission (SIC) has directed the Mumbai police to give details on action taken against officers who have violated a 2015 Government Resolution (GR). The GR asked for action against erring officers due to whom cases were lost in court and accused acquitted.
The state government had issued the GR in order to implement a Supreme Court (SC) order. To improve prosecution and investigation, the SC in 2014 had directed state governments that a mechanism be put in place to take action against officers because of whom the prosecution fails to prove its case in the court, resulting in the acquittal of an accused. The order aimed to infuse seriousness in the performance of probes and prosecution and crystallise mistakes so that they form part of a refresher training program for senior officers and prosecutors. The SIC gave its order following a series of RTI applications filed by DNA.
The order was passed by Ajit Kumar Jain, state Chief Information Commissioner (additional charge) on November 27. DNA had filed RTI applications to know the supervision by senior officers of the police force and the action taken in cases where the GR had been violated as the government's response was tardy in implementing SC order.
DNA had got to know about the SC order when the state was already in contempt of it. An NGO looking to check on its implementation wanted the details of compliance of the SC order from the state government.
Only after the SIC order, did the government come out with a GR on the subject. "They did not even know of the order and asked for it," said Bhaskar Prabhu, whose appeal with the information commissioner resulted in the government issuing the GR on October 17, 2015.
WHAT THE GR SAYS
- As per the GR, the Mumbai police formed 18 committees, each of which was to be headed by the zonal Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCPs). The GR stated that each zone or unit head was to take the meetings once every three months and implement the SC order rigorously. In its November 13, 2016 edition, DNA had reported that despite being in contempt, the response from the authorities continued to be tardy to the SC order.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Ajit Kumar Jain")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}