Bengaluru: Traffic policemen are often accused of taking bribe. But has it ever occurred to you whether the fine amounts collected 'legally' from violators can also be misused?
A rare case with similar charges was recently heard by the High Court after a 53-year-old Assistant Police Inspector, attached to Hampi Traffic Police Station in Hosapete, had approached the court seeking anticipatory bail. He has been charged with offences punishable under Sec 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant), 465 (Punishment for forgery), 468 ( Forgery for purpose of cheating) and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document).
The accused was authorised to collect the fine amounts from traffic offence violators and to record the fine amount collected in the BlackBerry, a smart phone instrument provided to traffic policemen for such specific purposes.
The Circle Inspector of Police of Hampi police station has lodged a complaint against Assistant Police Inspector L.G. Laxman Naik alleging that between March, 23, 2016 and June 18, 2016, the accused had registered several cases and collected a total fine amount of Rs 35,500 but has not deposited the amount within time.
It is further alleged that the accused had misused the amount for a period of six months. However, it subsequently appears though he has submitted the amount in the later stages, but excluded Rs 6,900 and the same has been misappropriated by him, the complaint stated.The advocate appearing for the accused, who relied upon several documents including the statement of records maintained during the course of business of the treasury, stated before the court that on November 25, 2016 the amount collected was deposited by the accused and that there is a delayed deposit of the amount with the treasury.
However, the government advocate argued that such documents are also concocted as per the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police. However, the court felt that the statement of accounts maintained by the Treasury in the regular course cannot be ignored. Also, the petitioner's advocate argued that the officer was due for retirement soon and he has already been suspended and disciplinary inquiry was already initiated.
