Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
H. N. Seth, I. P. Singh
NOORUL HUDA ALIAS NANKA - Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL, NAINI, ALLAHABAD - Respondents
Cri. H. C. Petition 14699 Of 1983
Decided On : 02/09/1984
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 50, 167, 209 - ARTICLE 22 - ARREST AND REMAND - VALIDITY - DELAY IN PRODUCTION BEFORE MAGISTRATE - EXPLANATION - SUBSEQUENT VALID REMAND ORDERS - CURE OF IRREGULARITIES - ORDER OF REMAND UNDER SECTION 209 - REASONS - MENTIONING OF GROUNDS - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Noorul Huda alias Nanka, challenged his remand to custody by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, and sought his release from Central Jail, Naini, where he was kept under alleged unlawful custody. The petitioner claimed that his arrest and detention were unlawful due to non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 50 and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was informed of the grounds of his arrest by the police as soon as he was arrested, and therefore, the plea of non-compliance with Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India had no force. The court also found that the delay in producing the petitioner before the magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest was justified due to the circumstances explained by the arresting officer, and therefore, the custody or detention was not illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's arrest and detention were unlawful due to non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 50 and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 22 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the delay in producing the petitioner before the magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest rendered his custody or detention illegal? 3. Whether subsequent valid remand orders cured any irregularities or illegalities in previous remand orders? 4. Whether the order of remand under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code was invalid due to the absence of reasons?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was informed of the grounds of his arrest by the police as soon as he was arrested, and therefore, the plea of non-compliance with Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India had no force. 2. The court found that the delay in producing the petitioner before the magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest was justified due to the circumstances explained by the arresting officer, and therefore, the custody or detention was not illegal. 3. The court held that subsequent valid remand orders cured any irregularities or illegalities in previous remand orders. 4. The court held that the order of remand under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not invalid due to the absence of reasons, as the order itself provided the reason for further remand, which was the summoning of co-accused who were on bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's habeas corpus writ petition, holding that there was no force in the petition and that the petitioner's custody or detention was not illegal.
( 1 ) THROUGH this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Noorul Huda alias Nanka petitioner has challenged his remand to custody by order dated 24. 11. 1983 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, and seeking his release from Central Jail, Naini, where he is said to be kept under so-called unlawful custody.
( 2 ) THE facts appearing from the petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit are as follows: The petitioner came to be arrested by the police of Police Station Cannington in connection with the murder taking place in the night between 17/18/8/1983. The petitioner alleged that he was arrested on 19/8/1983 from his house in village Khopa situated at a distance of 32 Km. From Police Station Cannington. However, the counter affidavit of J. N. Ram, Inspector Incharge, the then Station House Officer, P. S. Cannington, vouched the arrest of the petitioner on 20. 8. 1983 at 5. 30 p. m. from a place 1 km. from village Khopa which was said to be situated at a distance of 50 km. from P. S. Cannington.
( 3 ) APART from the above controversy regarding the actual date and time of arrest the petitioner claims that even if the arrest had taken place as alleged by the Opposite party then also the said arrest is hit by the provisions contained in sections 50 and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 22 of the Constitution of India rendering his arrest and detention in custody unlawful and invalid.
( 4 ) SECTION 50 Criminal Procedure Code provides that: Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shah forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India provides that: No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of thet grounds for his arrest.
( 5 ) THE petitioners plea in para 3 of his petition is that he was never informed of the grounds of his arrest by the police inspite of repeated requests made by him immediately to the Police and it was only on 22. 8. 1983 that he was told of the same by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, when he was produced before him for the first time after his arrest. However, in para 3 of the counter affidavit of J. N. Ram be vouched as soon as the petitioner was arrested the deponent informed him that the petitioner was being arrested in connection with the murder of Abdul Badi in Crime No. 224 under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code of police station Cannington.
( 6 ) THERE seems to be no reason for us to disbelieve the above ascension made in the counter affidavit by J. N. Ram. Accordingly we hold that the above plea of the petitioner that his arrest was hit by non-observance of the provisions as laid down in section 50 Criminal Procedure Code and Article 22 (1) Constitution of India has no force.
( 7 ) ARTICLE 22 (2) of the Constitution of India provides that:every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without authority of a magistrate. Section 167 (1) Criminal Procedure Code provides: Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty four hours fixed by section 57 and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well. founded, the officer incharge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed and relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accus
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
