In Brief
A police inspector was summoned as an accused in a trial for alleged extortion and torture of a suspect in custody. The inspector challenged the summoning order, arguing there was no prima facie evidence and that the informant acted from vengeance after the inspector testified against his father. The Supreme Court upheld the summoning, finding that consistent witness testimony across multiple statements—from initial investigation through trial—sufficiently established prima facie evidence of extortion. The Court held that arguments of vendetta were matters for trial defense, not grounds to refuse summoning, and that the subsequent expansion of allegations from a specific bank incident to a broader pattern of misconduct was justified by the cumulative evidence."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.