Law correspondent, Prayagraj. The Allahabad High Court has expressed displeasure over the SSP of Badaun appointing a police sub-inspector to communicate with the CJM and termed his attitude as sheer insolence. He has also been asked to file a personal affidavit and explain why separate civil contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
This order has been given by the division bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Sanjeev Kumar. The facts of the case are that Anand Prakash, the appellant in the pending appeal of 1984, is missing. On December 10, the court had directed to issue a bailable warrant to ensure the presence of the appellant.
It was also clarified that the warrant will not be returned unserved until the police provides proof including an affidavit that the applicant has died or has left the country. The SSP was also ordered to ensure that wherever the accused is hiding or has shifted, he is searched and the warrant is served. During the hearing, the court found that the SSP did not make the required efforts to serve the warrant and did not even communicate with the concerned CJM himself.
Letter sent from subordinate sub-inspector to CJM
In compliance with the court order, CJM Badaun had sent a memo directly to the SSP, but instead of replying himself, he sent a letter to the CJM from the subordinate sub-inspector. Expressing objection to the attitude, the division bench said, 'When the CJM himself had sent a memo to the SSP under the order of the High Court, then sending a reply from the sub-inspector is prima facie insolent.'
The court said that even though the matter was related to the court process, the SSP himself should reply through a memo and not get the letter written by an ordinary subordinate officer. The court also expressed dissatisfaction with the police report, which stated that the appellant could not be traced. The court said that this report is a clear violation of its order because the warrant can be returned unserved only in two circumstances, either the appellant has died or he has left the country.
Neither situation was confirmed in the report. Under these circumstances, the SSP prima facie appears guilty of contempt of the High Court order. The court also made it clear that if the affidavit is not filed within the stipulated time limit, the SSP will have to appear himself.