9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1456 - SCH - Indian LawsIssuance to the first respondent 72 hours notice in the event that the State intends to arrest him on the registration of an FIR making out a cognizable offence - HELD THAT - The direction issued by the High Court to the effect that 72 hours notice should be given to the first respondent in the event that the State finds it necessary to arrest him in connection with any complaint pertaining to a cognizable offence at the behest of the Joint Registrar (Audit) is manifestly incorrect in law. Such a direction could not have been issued by the High Court. The direction to the effect that 72 hours advance notice should be given to the first respondent before effecting an arrest, in the event of a complaint being registered in respect of a cognizable offence, is accordingly vacated and set aside. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Issues:
1. Validity of the direction for 72 hours' notice before arrest in a cognizable offence complaint. Analysis: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of a direction given by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, where it was ordered that the first respondent should be provided with 72 hours' notice before any potential arrest in connection with a complaint related to a cognizable offence. The Court found this direction to be legally incorrect, citing the case of Union of India v Padam Narain Aggarwal & Others (2008) 13 SCC 305. The Court emphasized that such a directive should not have been issued by the High Court, leading to the conclusion that the direction for advance notice was improper in law. The Supreme Court proceeded to vacate and set aside the direction requiring 72 hours' advance notice before the arrest of the first respondent in the event of a complaint concerning a cognizable offence. Additionally, the Court clarified that the first respondent retained the right to pursue legal remedies if he felt aggrieved by any actions taken against him. Consequently, the petition was disposed of by the Court, and any pending applications were also resolved as part of the judgment.
|
