 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 154 Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Immediate Arrest Chairman, Law Commission of India said that police officers thinks that arrest is a must. He pointed out that the Supreme Court in a judgement in one of its cases has ruled that police officers are misusing their discretionary powers for the immediate arrest whether the offences are of minor/major one and stressed the need for having a separate prosecuting agency to prevent immediate arrest. This agency should work on three aspects- (1) As an investigating agency. (2) Certain legal questions-may arise in which case there should be a legal cell in the police department for the investigation. He said in some States there are legal cell consisting of legal experts to act as an advisor to D.G.P., Commissioner of Police. (3) Filing of police charges. Effective investigation is very much necessary. Co-operation between investigating and prosecuting agency should be good. Thiru S. Saravanaperumal, Director Prosecution, though welcomed the above measure, opined that Director of Prosecution must be a senior police officer so that investigation and prosecution will be done at the earliest and the Director of Prosecution should not be from the law professionals like District Judge etc. Thiru V.K. Rajagopalan, Additional D.G.P., C.B.CI.D. supported the statement of Director, Prosecution. Thiru S. Sripall, D.G.P. Training opined that immediate arrest should not be completely avoided because few persons approach the political influence thereby delaying the investigation. However, he agreed for certain changes in discharging immediate arrest. Ammu Balachandran & K. Sumathi opined that Director of Prosecution should be law professional instead of police personnel.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back