English Typing Paragraph
▲
Six years after he was booked for "behaving indecently with an officer on duty" over parking on Marine Drive, a Grant Road resident argued his own case
before a magistrate and cleared his name. In 2013, an FIR under the Bombay Police Act had been filed against Dhruv A Parekh, who was 22 then, for arguing
with a traffic constable. During cross-examination by Parekh, traffic constable Sanjay Shridhar admitted that Parekh had neither spoken loudly nor raised
his hand. Further, an eyewitness produced by Parekh, who works in a hotel, told the court that it was the cop who had raised his voice and behaved rudely.
While clearing Parekh, the court did not comment on the constable’s behaviour but said the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. "The alleged misbehaviour is not proved by the prosecution by examining eye-witnesses. Per contra, defence witness who was present at the time
of incident said accused has shown his licence to the informant. In such a set of facts, it is highly improbable to rely on the sole testimony of the
informant," said the court. Only Shridhar and the investigating officer deposed as a prosecution witnesses, leading to the court asking why only the two
cops had deposed when the incident occurred in a public place. In his deposition, Shridhar said on December 28, 2013, he was on duty near Girgaum Chowpatty.
At noon, he noticed a car parked on the left turn near Cafe Ideal on Marine Drive. Since traffic movement was being obstructed, he asked the woman in
before a magistrate and cleared his name. In 2013, an FIR under the Bombay Police Act had been filed against Dhruv A Parekh, who was 22 then, for arguing
with a traffic constable. During cross-examination by Parekh, traffic constable Sanjay Shridhar admitted that Parekh had neither spoken loudly nor raised
his hand. Further, an eyewitness produced by Parekh, who works in a hotel, told the court that it was the cop who had raised his voice and behaved rudely.
While clearing Parekh, the court did not comment on the constable’s behaviour but said the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. "The alleged misbehaviour is not proved by the prosecution by examining eye-witnesses. Per contra, defence witness who was present at the time
of incident said accused has shown his licence to the informant. In such a set of facts, it is highly improbable to rely on the sole testimony of the
informant," said the court. Only Shridhar and the investigating officer deposed as a prosecution witnesses, leading to the court asking why only the two
cops had deposed when the incident occurred in a public place. In his deposition, Shridhar said on December 28, 2013, he was on duty near Girgaum Chowpatty.
At noon, he noticed a car parked on the left turn near Cafe Ideal on Marine Drive. Since traffic movement was being obstructed, he asked the woman in
Note: Use Down arrow,Enter,page-down to move to Next Chunk, Use page up to Move to Previous Chunk ▼
Chunk Number: 1