Time left : XX : XX
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 the driver’s seat to move the car. She swung the vehicle to Marine Drive and stopped near a restaurant.
He asked for her driving licence. At this point, Parekh came over and handed an icecream to one of the women in the car. He also asked what was the need
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 the driver’s seat to move the car. She swung the vehicle to Marine Drive and stopped near a restaurant.
He asked for her driving licence. At this point, Parekh came over and handed an icecream to one of the women in the car. He also asked what was the need
Note: UseDown,Enter,PageDown for Next Chunk, Use PageUp for Previous Chunk
Chunk Number: 1
