Can an opportunity to commit a crime be used as a claim for immunity?
To DDT’s remarks on investigators beating up persons an angry officer reacted as follows
Officer of an investigative agency allegedly beats up a person summoned by his office. Generally it would be a group who lands their fist and legs in varied angles and proportions . The so called 'timid ones' will be mute spectators. Presumably a compliant is filed. The complaint will be filed against all (even the mute spectators). So far, DDT is correct. When a compliant is filed, Department will approach the panel counsel only. Why not!! No officer is going to accept that he thrashed the complainant. So, it will always be a case where government servants should be protected against "vexatious and frivolous prosecution" [the complaint will remain in such capacity unless the Court decides the merits thereof] against acts discharged by them in their official capacities [ investigation is in their official capacity and the compliant will be one borne out of it ]. In such cases, does the departmental officer foot the bill- NO!!! Even otherwise, you could have parties who foist accusations to put the pressure on the Departmental guys (It is a possibility !!! ) What I cannot gather is how is the State against the departmental officers in such cases ? The case is fought by the panel counsel appointed by the Department, he continues to sing the song and use whatever skills he has to protect the officers (rightly or wrongly - obviously the officers will maintain their stand that nothing untoward happened). So, what is this about fighting it out in the individual capacity?
That brings us to the next question posed - Is it worth taking such huge risks for the fun of beating up people? Rest assured, there is no fun in beating up people. No body has it, maybe if you leave out a few sadistic characters (?) But this at least ensures that the investigating agency has a statement which brings out facts of the case, which in other case would never have come out. DDT refers it as a hobby to beat up people to extract nonsensical statements. Ask those who have worked in a preventive setup/ investigative organisation and probably read some of the statements which gives in-depth details of how the fraud was committed -- does DDT want to state that such details were cooked up only because the accused will retract it ? It is a different ball game, DDT . Yes the unsolicited advice is fine -Rather a must read for every investigator. At least one thing is certain, as on date, no one even within the organisation is going to take you near if such a complaint crops up. All out to save their own skin so the officer better save his. But coming to the point, it is not nonsensical statement; many real facts are brought to light. Yes, it is another story that corroborative evidence to such facts do not come up and courtesy to so many of the so called fixed , oops sorry, settled case laws , Department do not have any chance in many such cases. Why does DDT not suggest that the investigative agency should not book cases at all. Just sit , wait, watch and hope that parties will come up and accept that they are engaged in evasion of duty. There is always a story on the other side of the fence. DDT knows that - only probably they will not make good reading for the Trade.