On 12. 02. 1997 at about 2.15 am the 2nd respondent Deputy Inspector-General
of Police, Criminal Investigation and the 3rd respondent Deputy Director, Criminal
Investigation entered the petitioner’s residence without a warrant or the petitioner’s
permission purporting to act under sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure Act on the basis that they had “reason to believe” that a murder
suspect – one Punchi Nilame had entered the premises. Those respondents stated
that they acted on the instructions of the 1st respondent Inspector-General of
Police who had told the 1st respondent that a private informant whom he (the
1st respondent) had known personally for 15 years and had given reliable
information on many previous instances told him that he (the said informant) had
observed Punchi Nilame entering the petitioner’s residence at about 9 pm on 11.
02. 1997. The informant was then produced before the 2nd respondent who after
questioning him directed the 3rd respondent to question him further. The 3rd
respondent has made a note that he questioned the informant who stated that
he observed the suspect entering the petitioner’s residence from the rear side
The informant refused to disclose his identity; and no IB extracts were produced
to show whether the informant had been questioned inter alia, regarding the
circumstances of his presence near the petitioner’s residence which was situated
in a high security zone, guarded by security personnel. The credibility of the
information had not been checked. The police searched the petitioner’s residence
but did not find Punchi Nilame. No other house Jn the vicinity was searched.

Read the full judgement here

Social Sharing

Related posts