1963 (10) TMI 52 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the arrest and detention under Section 342/109 IPC.
2. Applicability of Section 151 Cr. P. C. for the arrest.
3. Justification for the arrest under the Police Act.
4. Applicability of Section 79 IPC for the defense.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the arrest and detention under Section 342/109 IPC:

The complainant, a homeopath, alleged that on 15-10-1961, he was unlawfully arrested by the respondents, who were police officers, and detained until the next day. The respondents admitted the arrest but claimed it was due to the complainant inciting communal feelings. The evidence presented by the complainant, including witness testimonies, was not found convincing enough to establish that the arrest was without reason. However, the court noted that the complainant was indeed arrested and detained, which required legal justification.

2. Applicability of Section 151 Cr. P. C. for the arrest:

The court scrutinized Section 151 Cr. P. C., which allows a police officer to arrest without a warrant if they know of a design to commit a cognizable offense and believe that the offense cannot be prevented otherwise. The court found no evidence suggesting that the complainant was about to commit a cognizable offense. The utterances attributed to the complainant, even if true, would only constitute an offense under Section 153-A IPC, which is non-cognizable. Therefore, the arrest under Section 151 Cr. P. C. was deemed unjustified.

3. Justification for the arrest under the Police Act:

The respondents argued that Section 23 of the Police Act provided broader powers for arrest to prevent offenses. The court emphasized that any arrest must be legally authorized, and the provisions of Section 151 Cr. P. C. must be read in harmony with the Police Act. The court rejected the argument that the Police Act could justify the arrest for a non-cognizable offense without a warrant, highlighting the necessity of adhering to the procedure established by law.

4. Applicability of Section 79 IPC for the defense:

The respondents contended that they were protected under Section 79 IPC, which exempts actions done in good faith under a mistake of fact. The court found that the respondents did not plead or establish any mistake of fact or good faith. Their defense was solely based on the belief that they were justified by law, which was not supported by the facts. Therefore, Section 79 IPC did not apply.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the arrest and detention of the complainant were unlawful. The respondents did not have the legal authority to arrest the complainant without a warrant for a non-cognizable offense. The appeal was allowed, the order of acquittal was set aside, and the respondents were convicted under Section 342/109 IPC. The Head Constable was fined Rs. 100, and the other constables were fined Rs. 50 each, with imprisonment in default of payment.