Additional Sessions Judge Sanjay Bansal said conviction of the ACP without holding any trial was "bad in law" and if the chief metropolitan magistrate, who had held the officer guilty, thought that any offence was committed under the Delhi Police Act, either he or his reader could have made a formal complaint and proceeded with the case.
Veer Singh Tyagi, ACP Madhu Vihar in east Delhi, was convicted for filing a charge sheet in a theft case without putting his or the SHO's stamp on it and the chief metropolitan magistrate issued a showcause notice to the officer and straightaway convicted him under Delhi Police Act.
"There was no complaint filed alleging the said offences nor there was any police report in this respect. Thus if the CMM thought that any offence was committed under the DP Act, either he could himself make a complaint or could direct his Reader to make such a complaint. That was the only way to proceed in the matter.
"Merely by issuing a showcause notice under the DP Act and obtaining petitioner's (Tyagi) reply thereto, no conviction could be recorded by the CMM. The conviction of the petitioner without conducting trial was bad and is, therefore, is liable to be set aside," sessions court said.
The ACP challenged the chief metropolitan magistrate's order contending that his constitutional rights were violated as he was convicted without holding any trial. The sessions court, while setting aside the magisterial court's conviction order, said if the chief metropolitan magistrate was of the opinion that any offence was committed by the ACP, he should proceed against the officer as per law.
"In my view, whatever might have been the fault of the petitioner, he could not have been convicted without following due process of law," the judge said.