Application of inspection supervisor
Applicant: Yao Huaping, male, from Yao Xing Village, Qingshui Town, guanxian City, Liaocheng City.
Respondent: guanxian Public Security Bureau.
Application: Request the procuratorate to urge the guanxian Public Security Bureau to file a case to investigate Yue Qixiang's robbery, or notify or reply the applicant in writing not to file a case.
Fact reason:
On February 26, 20 10, the applicant sent a letter of accusation about Yue Qixiang's robbery to guanxian Public Security Bureau by registered mail, with the email number of XA 1650 67 19 9 37, but so far he has not replied or informed me that the case will not be filed. The contents of the complaint are as follows:
Plaintiff: Yao Huaping, male, from Yao Xing Village, Qingshui Town, guanxian City, Liaocheng City.
Defendant:
1, Yue Qixiang, currently director of guanxian Civil Affairs Bureau.
2. Feng Shouyi is from Qingshui Town, guanxian.
3. Other members of the team headed by Feng Shouyi
Charge: 1. Request guanxian Public Security Bureau to investigate the criminal responsibility of criminal gangs headed by Yue Qixiang and Feng Shouyi for robbing the plaintiff's tractors, cash and other items.
2. The defendant was ordered to compensate the defendant for all the losses caused by robbing tractors and other things.
Fact: At about 10: 30 p.m. on the first day of May after the lunar calendar 1998 (AD1June 24, 998), a small team led by defendants Yue Qixiang and Feng Shouyi gathered many people to illegally invade the defendant's home. There were no adults in the defendant's home, and he did not show any documents and procedures, and did not show his identity. Yao, the only minor in the defendant's family, forced the plaintiff to buy a new tractor for one month, and illegally took the plaintiff's tractor, cash 1 10,000 yuan and all the tools in the toolbox, which has not been given to me so far, causing great losses to me.
The defendant has violated the crime of robbery stipulated in Article 263 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) "robbing public or private property by violence, coercion or other means", and it is also "burglary" stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 263 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). According to the provisions of this article, it should be "sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years, life imprisonment or death, and fined or confiscated property". Therefore, the case is still under prosecution, and it is hoped that the public security organs will enforce the law impartially and investigate the criminal responsibility of the defendant for burglary.
The criminal facts of this case are evidenced by the administrative judgment of guanxian People's Court of Shandong Province-(1999) GuanxingchuziNo. 16 1 and Liaocheng Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province-(2000) Chaxingzhongzi No.57.
This judgment is not clearly defined as an administrative violation! The statement in the judgment of the first instance is: "We believe that on the first day of the fifth lunar month of 1998, the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, the defendant forcibly detained the tractor of the plaintiff Yao Huaping to Du School on the grounds that it refused to pay the agricultural Xia Zheng, and its administrative action had no legal basis, so this court did not support it." Later, it was stated in the judgment that "the administrative compulsory act of detaining the plaintiff Yao Huaping's tractor by the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian was revoked." The statement in the judgment of second instance is "We believe that the fact that the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, the appellee, forcibly detained Yao Huaping's tractor to Dujia on May 1998 of the lunar calendar on the grounds that the appellee Yao Huaping refused to pay the agricultural Xia Zheng can be recognized. This administrative act has no legal basis and is illegal. Our hospital will not support it, and the tractor seized by the Appellee shall be returned. " The final verdict is "dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment." Administrative coercion should be understood as an illegal act committed by an administrative organ or its responsible person by virtue of its administrative authority, so these two judgments are relatively fair, at least confirming the fact that Yue Qixiang robbed-"illegal act" is not an administrative violation! It's just that the administrative office can't judge his criminal responsibility! But at that time, the people's court should take the initiative to hand over the case to the public security organs and investigate the criminal facts of Yue Qixiang and others! If the court does not hand it over, it can at least fight against the statute of limitations, because Yao Huaping's prosecution to the court is to investigate Yue Qixiang's responsibility, that is, the case has been filed for prosecution as stipulated in Article 88 of the Criminal Law, and the public security organ has not filed a case for investigation, which should also be regarded as criminal private prosecution, so the statute of limitations in this case has been interrupted! Once again, request the public security organs to investigate the criminal responsibility of Yue Qixiang and others!
To sum up, according to the third paragraph of Article 84 of the Criminal Procedure Law, "the public security organ, the people's procuratorate or the people's court shall accept reports, complaints and reports. If it is not under its own jurisdiction, it shall be transferred to the competent authority for handling, and the informant, complainant and informant shall be notified; " Guanxian Public Security Bureau didn't give me a reply, and didn't inform me not to file a case! I also hope that the procuratorate will urge the public security organs to continue to file a case for investigation or give me a statement according to the provisions of Articles 86 and 87 of the Criminal Procedure Law on procuratorial supervision!
I am here to convey