1970 (10) TMI 75 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
2. Violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
3. Legality of remand orders and detention under Sections 151, 107, and 117(3) CrPC.
4. Legality of remand orders and detention under Sections 143 and 447 IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution:
The petitioner claimed he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest, thus violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner was arrested on August 9, 1970, under Section 151 CrPC, and was not provided with any information regarding the reasons for his arrest. However, the court found that the petitioner was aware of the nature of the alleged offence for which he was arrested. The police had informed him at the time of arrest that it was under Section 151 CrPC. Additionally, the remand orders issued by the magistrate referred to offences under Sections 143 and 447 IPC. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no violation of Article 22(1) as the petitioner knew the grounds for his arrest.

2. Violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution:
The petitioner contended that he was not produced before a Magistrate after his arrest, violating Article 22(2) of the Constitution. The report from the Sub-Divisional Officer indicated that the petitioner was produced before him on the same day of arrest, August 9, 1970, and was remanded to jail custody. The court found that the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate within the required period under Section 61 CrPC and Article 22(2) of the Constitution. Therefore, the court rejected the claim that there was a violation of Article 22(2).

3. Legality of Remand Orders and Detention under Sections 151, 107, and 117(3) CrPC:
The petitioner was detained under Sections 151, 107, and 117(3) CrPC. The court examined the remand orders and found that the provisions of Sections 112, 113, 114, and 117 CrPC were not complied with before committing the petitioner to custody under Section 117(3) CrPC. The court held that the detention under Section 117(3) CrPC was illegal due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements. However, this did not assist the petitioner as he was also detained under proper custody for offences under Sections 143 and 447 IPC.

4. Legality of Remand Orders and Detention under Sections 143 and 447 IPC:
The court reviewed the remand orders for Cases Nos. 3 and 5 of 1970 under Sections 143 and 447 IPC. The warrants showed that the petitioner was remanded to jail custody on various dates. Although there was a gap in the remand order on August 24 and 25, 1970, the petitioner was reported to be sick and unable to attend court. The court referred to the majority decision in Raj Narain v. Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi, which held that remand orders passed without the personal presence of the accused are not illegal. The court concluded that the petitioner's detention on the date of the return was legal as he was kept in detention under proper remand orders as an undertrial prisoner.

Conclusion:
The court discharged the rule issued on September 7, 1970, and dismissed the petition, finding no violation of Articles 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution and validating the remand orders under Sections 143 and 447 IPC.