NEW DELHI: Is Delhi Police taking advantage of a loophole in the law to pick and choose economic offences it wants to pursue? The Delhi high court has been called upon to clear the air on how police must proceed in economic offence cases involving several victims duped through different transactions by the same accused.
HC recently received a reference from additional sessions judge Kamini Lau seeking an authoritative pronouncement on the legal position. The reference came on a bail application where the judge realized that police had lodged only one FIR on the complaint of one person even though several people had been cheated by the accused.
ASJ Lau found the Economic Offences Wing selective in its approach and handpicks cases where it wants to lodge multiple FIRs as a matter of convenience. "While in some cases multiple FIRs are being recorded followed by filing of separate chargesheets, in others, there is an adamant refusal to follow this procedure. It is this selective application of statutory law by the investigating agency despite law declared by the Supreme Court which is highly questionable and which this court cannot ignore," the judge said explaining why HC needs to step in.The judge was unsparing on the EOWs role in the case before her where, despite nearly 2,000 victims being allegedly duped of to the tune of over 46 crores, the EOW had lodged one common FIR.
"No Institution worth the name can afford to violate the law of the land to suit departmental convenience by exhibiting gross indifference to the rights and interests of victims and by adopting a stand which rather suits the alleged wrong doers/violators which is being done by grossly ignoring the concept of Proportionality of Punishment as provided under law," the court noted in its strongly worded reference to HC.
The court was left with no option but to send a reference after the DCP of EOW and the director of prosecution took a contrary stand on the issue. While the DCP maintained both SC and HC give enough leeway to police to decide how they wish to prosecute an economic offence, the prosecution director agreed with the court that SC/HC directives are clear in this regard and uniformity in approach is a must.
"I fail to understand how the punishment of a person irrespective of whether he commits one offence (by cheating one investor) or a series of offences (by cheating different investors of different amounts at different points of time and at different places), can be the same (i.e. the maximum as provided for the single offence)," the court wondered, explaining its dilemma.
Police justified its method saying the FIR relates only to the complaint of one Rajesh and as far as other victims are concerned, since similar modus-operandi was used by the accused, the matter is under investigation and the same has been clubbed.But ASJ Lau cited how SC has in many cases held that the "act of cheating each individual constituted a separate offence being a separate transaction and hence the act of cheating other depositor/investors would constitute a separate offence for each of the said act."
Print Page
HC recently received a reference from additional sessions judge Kamini Lau seeking an authoritative pronouncement on the legal position. The reference came on a bail application where the judge realized that police had lodged only one FIR on the complaint of one person even though several people had been cheated by the accused.
ASJ Lau found the Economic Offences Wing selective in its approach and handpicks cases where it wants to lodge multiple FIRs as a matter of convenience. "While in some cases multiple FIRs are being recorded followed by filing of separate chargesheets, in others, there is an adamant refusal to follow this procedure. It is this selective application of statutory law by the investigating agency despite law declared by the Supreme Court which is highly questionable and which this court cannot ignore," the judge said explaining why HC needs to step in.The judge was unsparing on the EOWs role in the case before her where, despite nearly 2,000 victims being allegedly duped of to the tune of over 46 crores, the EOW had lodged one common FIR.
"No Institution worth the name can afford to violate the law of the land to suit departmental convenience by exhibiting gross indifference to the rights and interests of victims and by adopting a stand which rather suits the alleged wrong doers/violators which is being done by grossly ignoring the concept of Proportionality of Punishment as provided under law," the court noted in its strongly worded reference to HC.
The court was left with no option but to send a reference after the DCP of EOW and the director of prosecution took a contrary stand on the issue. While the DCP maintained both SC and HC give enough leeway to police to decide how they wish to prosecute an economic offence, the prosecution director agreed with the court that SC/HC directives are clear in this regard and uniformity in approach is a must.
"I fail to understand how the punishment of a person irrespective of whether he commits one offence (by cheating one investor) or a series of offences (by cheating different investors of different amounts at different points of time and at different places), can be the same (i.e. the maximum as provided for the single offence)," the court wondered, explaining its dilemma.
Police justified its method saying the FIR relates only to the complaint of one Rajesh and as far as other victims are concerned, since similar modus-operandi was used by the accused, the matter is under investigation and the same has been clubbed.But ASJ Lau cited how SC has in many cases held that the "act of cheating each individual constituted a separate offence being a separate transaction and hence the act of cheating other depositor/investors would constitute a separate offence for each of the said act."
No comments:
Post a Comment