On Tuesday, the judge was informed that Chitale had not been served with a pre-arrest notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, summoning her for interrogation.
To this, the public prosecutor responded that a notice had indeed been served.
Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay for Chitale, pointed out that the notice had been served only minutes before Chitale was arrested.
This did not bode well with the judge who pulled up the prosecution for not following procedure.
He even orally suggested that action should be initiated against the investigating officer.
However, the public prosecutor apologised on behalf of the police.
Source: Barandbench
