Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Hidayatullah, CJI., A.N.Ray : C.A.Vaidialingam : G.K.Mitter : J.M.Shelat, JJ.
V.L.Rohlua
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Aijal, District Mizo
Case No. : 238 of 1970
Date of Decision : 9/29/70
Advocates Appeared: Lal Naunit : Singh Hardev
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 344 – Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958 – Sections 4, 5 – Order of detention – Release – Issuance of a writ of habeas corpus – Petitioner has applied for his release by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus – Previously he had applied to the High court of Assam and Nagaland (Misc. Criminal Case No. 506 of 1969), but his petition was dismissed – Held, Under Section 5 of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, he had to be made over to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay, together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest – What is the least possible delay in a case depends upon the facts, that is to say, how, where and in what circumstances the arrest was effected – Only question is one of remand. – Here, too, if the matter had been for the application of the Rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no remand could have been longer than 15 days at a time. – Fact of the matter, however, is that the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable by reason of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution in this area. – This was laid down in State of Nagaland v. Rattan Singh. Only the spirit of the Criminal Procedure Code applies. – In this view of the matter we cannot insist on a strict compliance with the provisions of Section 344 of Code of Criminal Procedure. – Petitioner had to be kept at Dibrugarh for want of space at Aijal. Long distances, difficult terrain and hostile country, are considerations to take into account. – Period each time was slightly longer than 15 days but not so unconscionably long as to violate the spirit of the Code. – There was a gap when the petitioner was in the custody of this court but no request was made for his release then. – Now he is on a proper remand and in fact has been remanded to the custody of the Magistrate by us. – Court cannot now hold his detention to be illegal. – Petition Dismissed
M.HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I.
(1) THE petitioner Rohlua has applied for his release by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Previously he had applied to the High court of Assam and Nagaland (Misc. Criminal Case No. 506 of 1969), but his petition was¯dismissed. The facts are as follows :
(2) THE petitioner is admittedly an inhabitant of Bakupi in the Mizo District. He was arrested by the Armed Forces under Section 4(c) of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958. He was handed over to the Civil Authorities on 2/03/1968. Since then two criminal cases have been started against him on 10/11/1969 and 26/02/1970. They cover a wide range of offences under the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, the Arms Act, several S. of the Indian Penal Code etc. The cases are pending against him.
(3) THE petitioners complaint is that he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest and detention, that no warrant was shown to him and that he was denied the right of making representations. His further grievance is that the cases have not been tried and he is held in illegal custody without obtaining proper remands from Magistrates.
(4) THESE allegations are controverted in counter-affidavits by Mr. D. B. Poon, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mizo District, Aijal. According to him the petitioner was arrested without warrant by the Armed Forces as is authorised under Section 4(c) of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act. The petitioner was informed of the grounds of his arrest and as soon as he was handed over to the Civil Authorities he was prosecuted for the offences. The petitioner was also given the grounds of detention along with the detention order on 9/05/1968. He could have represented to the Advisory Board but did not make a representation. Since then the petitioner made a confession which is also exhibited in the case but as he is to be tried we do not refer to it here.
(5) THE State authorities have produced the order-sheets from the cases. From them it appears that the petitioner was charged in the court of the Additional District Magistrate on 3/03/1968, and was kept injudicial custody. He has since been remanded to jail custody from time to time. On July 28, this court in the habeas corpus petition ordered his production in court and appointed Mr. Hardev Singh, Advocate, as amicus curiae.
(6) THE petitioner then filed a second affidavit on 3/08/1970. In that affidavit he has alleged that he was handed over to the Civil Authorities by the Armed Forces after 2 months from his arrest, his confessional statement was obtained at gun-point, that no order was served on him under the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1953, that he was tortured, that the detention order was vague and that as the remand order expired on 18/07/1970, his further detention became illegal.
(7) IN reply to this another affidavit has been filed by Mr. D. B. Poon. According to him the petitioner was handed over to the Civil Authorities on 2/03/1968 and the petitioner was produced before a Magistrate the very next day. The order of remand made on that day has been filed. The last order of remand was made on 20/06/1970 and it was till 18/07/1970. Since then another order of remand has been produced and the remand is to run till 28/09/1970. During the time he has been in the custody of this court there has been a break in the orders of remand as will appear presently. The Additional Deputy Commissioner also stated that owing to shortage of accommodation at Aijal Jail the petitioner was kept in Dibrugarh Jail till his production in this court. In a supplementary affidavit the Additional Deputy Commissioner has explained that the petitioner was held for some time by the Armed Forces for interrogation at the Security Force Headquarters because of his connection with activities against the security of the State and his close association with the outlawed Mizo National Front Army and
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
