1983 (1) TMI 291 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of mala fide actions by police officers.
2. Violation of constitutional mandates under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
3. Jurisdiction of police officers in conducting the investigation.
4. Legality of the search, seizure, and arrest.
5. Compliance with Section 50(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code during the arrest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegation of Mala Fide Actions by Police Officers:
Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner No. 2 was arrested due to his refusal to satisfy an illegal demand for gratification made by the police officers. This arrest was claimed to be mala fide.
Court's Analysis: The court referred to the affidavit-in-reply by respondent No. 4, which detailed the investigation and denied any mala fide intent. The court also cited precedents, including Madhu Limaye and State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna, which established that allegations of mala fides are typically not examined at the investigation stage unless there is gross abuse of power. The court concluded that it was hazardous to determine mala fides based solely on affidavits and decided not to interfere at this stage.

2. Violation of Constitutional Mandates:
Petitioner's Argument: The arrest of petitioner No. 2 violated Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, which protect the right to life and personal liberty and require that a person arrested be informed of the grounds for arrest.
Court's Analysis: The court emphasized that these constitutional provisions are designed to safeguard the rights of the accused. The petitioners cited cases like Govind Prasad v. State of West Bengal and Ajitkumar v. State of Assam to argue that non-compliance with these provisions renders an arrest illegal. However, the court found that the petitioner No. 2 was informed of the reasons for his arrest, as detailed in the affidavit by respondent No. 4, and thus there was no violation of Articles 21 and 22(1).

3. Jurisdiction of Police Officers:
Petitioner's Argument: The investigation was carried out by officers who did not have jurisdiction, as the original complaint was filed at Bavlu Police Station.
Court's Analysis: The court examined Sections 156(1) and 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allow superior officers to investigate cases within their local area. The court also referred to Section 156(2), which protects the proceedings of a police officer from being questioned on jurisdictional grounds. The court concluded that respondent No. 4, a superior officer, was justified in conducting the investigation, and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were duty-bound to assist under Section 64 of the Bombay Police Act.

4. Legality of the Search, Seizure, and Arrest:
Petitioner's Argument: The search, seizure, and arrest were illegal as they were conducted without proper jurisdiction and in violation of procedural requirements.
Court's Analysis: The court found that the actions of the police officers were within their jurisdiction and complied with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court dismissed the petitioners' challenge on the grounds of jurisdiction and procedural irregularities.

5. Compliance with Section 50(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code:
Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner No. 2 was not informed of the full particulars of the offence at the time of arrest, violating Section 50(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Court's Analysis: The court reviewed the affidavits and found that petitioner No. 2 was informed of the reasons for his arrest. The court rejected the argument that the particulars needed to be provided in writing, emphasizing that the requirement is to inform the arrested person of the reasons for arrest, which was done in this case. The court cited relevant cases to support its conclusion that there was compliance with Section 50(1).

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments regarding mala fide actions, constitutional violations, lack of jurisdiction, procedural irregularities, and non-compliance with Section 50(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The rule was discharged, and the arrest and subsequent actions by the police were deemed lawful.