SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Ker) 340

PAREED PILLAY
Ravindran – Appellant
Versus
Dy. Inspector General of Police – Respondent


Judgment :-

Petitioner was prosecuted for absenting himself from duty without permission on 6-8-1986 from the special train in which he was travelling. He is alleged to have committed offence under S.10(m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short, the act). He was also accused of leaving the train without handing over the charge of the vehicle which was carried in the train. He was produced before the Magistrate of the First Class and Assistant Commandant, Shilling. Though he pleaded guilty to both the charges, the Magistrate recorded the statements of five prosecution witnesses and gave him an opportunity to cross-examine them. He declined to cross-examine the witnesses. Considering his 18 years of service to the entire satisfaction of the superiors, the Magistrate took a lenient view and convicted him till the rising of the Court.

2. As a result of the judicial trial and consequent conviction petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 13-12-1986 under S.12(1) of the Act. Petitioner filed appeal under R.28 of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1955. The appeal was rejected by the first respondent as per Ext.P4 order.

3. Petitioner's case is that he felt giddy on account













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top