Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Patanjali Sastri, CJI., M.C.Mahajan, N.Chandrashekar Aiyar, S.R.Dass, JJ.
Gunupati Keshavram Reddy
Versus
Nafisul Hasan And The State Of U.P.
Case No. : 75 of 1952
Date of Decision : 3/18/52
A petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution alleged that A was arrested in Bombay on the 11th March 1952 and taken in custody to Lucknow to be produced before the Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly to answer a charge of breach of privilege. He was not produced before a magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest and was in detention in the Speakers custody at Lucknow even at the time of petition; which fact was admitted by the State.
Held: that the peremptory provisions of Art. 22 (2) were contra veined and that A was entitled to release.
M. Patanjali Sastri, C.J.I.
(1) THIS is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India complaining that one Sri Homi Dinshaw Mistry is under illegal detention and praying that he be released fothwith. The petition alleges that Sri Mistry was anested in Bombay on the 11/03/1952 and taken in custody to Lucknow to be produced before the Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly to answer a charge of breach of privilege. It is further alleged that Sri Mistry was not produced before a Magistrate within twentyfour hours of his arrest; but is still kept in detention in the Speakers custody at Lucknow. The Attorney - General admits before us that this allegation is well-founded, that is to say, that since his arrest on the 11th March, Sri Mistry has not been produced before a Magistrate; but is still detained in custody. This is a clear breach of the provisions of Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India which is quite peremptory in its terms:
"NO such person shall be detained in Custody beyond the said period without the authority of a Magistrate"
(2) IN view of the admitted facts it is perfectly clear that this provision of the Constitution has been contravened and the said Mr. Mistry is entitled to his release. The habeas corpus petition therefore succeeds and we direct that Mr. Mistry be released forthwith. (Order communicated by telegram at the expense of the Petitioner).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
