Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Delhi Police should be directed to follow a mandatory procedure for issuance and service of notices and recording of attendance under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the same safeguards should extend to the working of Sections 91, 160 and 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The petition raised concerns about repeated police attendance without written notice, absence of proof of compliance, and non-recording of documents tendered during investigation. The Court, after considering the reports placed before it and the suggested implementation mechanism, framed a structured procedure to ensure fair notice, written service in prescribed form, acknowledgment of appearance, preservation of a copy of the notice in the case diary, and consequences for non-compliance by investigating officers. The Court further directed that the same procedure should govern the operation of Sections 91, 160 and 175, so that persons called for investigation or inquiry are adequately informed of their obligations and rights.
Conclusion: The directions were issued in favour of the petitioner and the police were required to strictly follow the prescribed procedure under Section 41A and the connected provisions.