SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(AP) 1014

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY, P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, P.S.MISHRA
K.Rajesh Babu - Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy Districta - Respondent
Decided On : 10-14-97

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 382 - Central Act - - Sections 6 and 2 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 141 – Police Brutally Beaten - Public Interest Litigation - Petition has alleged that he and his father were arrested by police in night and taken to Police Station - His father was brutally beaten up by police - They were shifted in a jeep to police Station and illegally confined till officer-in-charge sub-Inspector of Police demanded and when petitioner expressed his inability to do so he suggested to him to sell away his television set and other household articles and to arrange said amount of money - Until demand was met his father would be kept in custody - He alleged in affidavit that when he wanted to know why he and his father were taken into custody no proper reasons were disclosed to them and that he apprehended danger to life of his father was not involved in any offence and because his father was illegally detained his mother and his brothers and sisters were put to severe hardships Court entertained said petition and notices were issued to respondent – Held, We have good reasons to hold that observations have occasioned because court has fallen in error that proceeding before it had come by way of a telegram from either detenu or a relative of detenu - directions obviously are issued without giving any opportunity of being heard to legal Services Authority and thus are not operative - Observations are mainly in nature of obiter dicta and are expressions of court anguish that privilege of public interest litigation is being abused by many persons who do not deserve any indulgence - We thus declare that observations aforementioned and directions to Legal Services Authority are not sustainable - They are accordingly recalled legal services authority shall proceed as it has been proceeding in past and place such letters/telegrams as it has been placing in past by way of public interest litigation before Court – Order Accordingly.

P. S. MISHRA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS reference seeking review of the judgment by a Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 13920 of 1997 has been placed before the Special Bench constituted for the purpose of examining whether the observations and directions therein to the A. P. State Legal Services Authority constituted under Section 6 of the central Act 39/87 are sustainable.

( 2 ) BY a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, one K. Rajesh babu has alleged that he and his father were arrested by the police on 27/28-6-1997 in the night and taken to the S. R. Nagar Police Station. His father was brutally beaten up by the police. They were shifted in a jeep to Chevella police Station and illegally confined till 30-6-1997. The Officer-in-charge, the sub-Inspector of Police, demanded Rs. 20,000/- and when the petitioner expressed his inability to do so, he (the Officer-in-charge) suggested to him to sell away his television set and other household articles and to arrange the said amount of money. Until the demand was met, his father would be kept in custody. He alleged in the affidavit that when he wanted to know why he and his father were taken into custody, no proper reasons were disclosed to them and that he apprehended danger to the life of his father; his father was not involved in any offence and because his father was illegally detained, his mother and his brothers and sisters were put to severe hardships, the Court entertained the said petition and notices were issued to the respondents.

( 3 ) THE Officer-in-charge, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chevella Police Station in his return stated that on 12-5-1997at 7-30 hours one Gurram Srinivas, Cashier in Raghavendra Service Station, Chevella lodged a complaint in the Police station, Chevella stating that at 4-00 hours, two unknown persons knocked at the door of the petrol bunk in which the complainant was sleeping and on hearing the knocking of the door, the complainant opened the door. Immediately two persons who were wearing masks forcibly entered into the room, threatened the complainant not to shout and took away Rs. 28,000/- from the cash-chest and almirah confining the complainant in another room. They cut the telephone wires and locked the door from outside and decamped with the booty. The complainant then called out the pedestrains from the window and they woke up the other workers who broke open the lock. The said complaint was registered as Crime No. 74/97 under Section 382, IPC and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, the police suspected one Chakali Lakshmaiah of Chevella village who was an ex-employee of the Raghavendra Service Station, but he was absconding from the village. It came to light that the alleged detenu and another Moonaiah were moving along with the said suspect. The police visited the residence of the alleged detenu on 29-6-1997but they were not available at his residence. The alleged detenu was later apprehended at Shankarpalli village on 3-7-1997. He was brought to the police station and after interrogation he confessed to have committed the offence in Crime No. 74/97. He stated that he along with moonaiah entered in to the petrol pump and committed the robbery. The police recovered Rs. 1,000/- from his possession. The alleged detenu was produced before the First Class Magistrate, Chevella on 4-7-1997. The learned Magistrate remanded him to judicial custody. Consequently, the detenu was lodged in central Prison, Hyderabad.

( 4 ) AFTER taking notice of the facts as alleged in the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner and in the counter-affidavit as the return to the allegations of the petitioner by the Sub-Inspector of Police, the Court concluded the judgment by stating as follows: "in view of the above averments in the counter-affidavit and since the detenu is an accused in the case and he is in the judicial custody, it cannot be said that he is illegally detained. We therefore find that the allegations made in the







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top