The requirement of Section 50(1) Cr. P. C. is satisfied if the police officers inform the person being arrested of the offence for which he is being arrested, even if they do not mention all of the sections of the law that he is alleged to have violated.

( 1 ) THROUGH this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has made a prayer for his immediate release from custody, for a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction upon the C. J. M. Azamgarh for action under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. against respondents No. 3 and 4 and other police officers for proceeding for contempt of Court against respondents No. 3 and 4 other police officers responsible for the arrest of the petitioner and for compensation and costs for his illegal arrest and detention. It is not disputed that the applicant was released on bail in relation to the criminal case for which he was allegedly arrested and as such the prayer for immediate release is not one to be considered in this application. The other prayers would be considered in the light of the averments, counter averments and the law on the point.

( 2 ) THE respondents arrayed in the petition were : (i) The State of U. P. through the Home Secretary, (ii) The Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh; (iii) Sri Anantdev Tiwari Circle Officer of Police, Azamgarh City and (iv) Sri Raj Narain Singh, Station Officer, Sidhari Police Station, Azamgarh.

( 3 ) THE petitioner described himself as an advocate in the very description of the parties and stated that he was a peace loving law abiding citizen and was never prosecuted, convicted and or punished. There was no criminal history for the petitioner. He comes from an educated, aristorcrat and established family and had been a law graduate and had been practising as an advocate since 1992 at Azamgarh. His professional duties required him to go to Allahabad High Court under instructions from his clients. One of his such clients was one Pankaj Pandey who was an undertrial prisoner at Azamgarh District Jail. This Pankaj Pandey was wanted in case Crime No. 618 of 1996, police station Kotwali City, Azamgarh, and on his surrender before the Court on 8-10-1996 he was sent to custody. He was released on bail on 25-10-1996 and was actually released from the Jail at about 7. 00 p. m. The surrender application of Pankaj Pandey was drafted and submitted by the present petitioner. Respondent No. 4, Sri Raj Narain Singh, had been the Station Officer at Mubarakpur on 9-10-1996 and a Case Crime No. 291 of 1996 under Section 392, I. P. C. was registered in his police station. The incident alleged therein had taken place at 9. 30 p. m. The F. I. R. did not name Pankaj Pandey but Raj Narain Singh has manipulated to show Pankaj Pandey as an accused in that case in the course of investigation although Pankaj Pandey was in custody since 8-10-1996 Pankaj Pandey was similarly shown involved in two other cases which took place during his stay in custody. This Raj Naraian Singh was transferred to Sidhari on 30-10-1996. Here also Case Crime No. 507 of 1996 under Section 392, I. P. C. was registered against unknown accused persons for an incident allegedly taking place on 25-10-1996 at 9. 00 a. m. In this case also Pankaj Pandey was shown as an accused during investigation. On the basis of these cases a proceeding under the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act was initiated against Pankaj Pandey. The petitioner, as a counsel of Pankaj Pandey, made an application to the Court to the effect that Pankaj Pandey may not be committed in Case Crime No. 507 of 1996 as on the alleged date of the incident of that case he was already in custody. This application moved by the petitioner had engraved the respondent No. 4 against the petitioner and there was hot exchange of words between them over this issue. The petitioner had accompanied Pankaj Pandey to Allahabad in December, 1996, and met a Senior Advocate, Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, for presentation of a miscellaneous writ petition of criminal nature and it was registered as Writ Petition No. 4019 of 1996 (Pankaj Pandey v. State of U. P. ). A direction wasgiven by the Court on 10-12-1996 asking the respondents therein to file counter aff