Back
1988 Supreme(All) 184
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Kamleshwar Nath
RAMA KANT MOHANLAL SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH ALIAS
Versus
STATE
Decided On : 07 April 1988
Habeas Corpus with Petition No, 8077 of 1987, connected with H. C. W. P. Nos. 8183 of 1987and 7721 of 1987
The constitutional and statutory requirements of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest and the particulars of the offense must be strictly complied with, and the general diary entry after the arrest of a person must include the fact that the arrested person had been informed of the grounds of arrest and the full particulars of the offenses with which they are charged.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Arrest - Constitutional and statutory requirements - Compliance - Entry in general diary - Necessity - Interpretation of Section 44 of the Police Act, 1961 and clause (5) of Regulation 295 of the U. P. Police Regulations.
Fact of the Case:
Three petitioners, Rama Kant, Mohan Lal, and Shamsher Bahadur Singh, were arrested in connection with separate cases of murder. They filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that their arrests were illegal as the arresting officers had not complied with the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which require the police to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest and the particulars of the offense.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the constitutional and statutory requirements of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest and the particulars of the offense must be strictly complied with. The court interpreted Section 44 of the Police Act, 1961 and clause (5) of Regulation 295 of the U. P. Police Regulations to require that the general diary entry after the arrest of a person must include the fact that the arrested person had been informed of the grounds of arrest and the full particulars of the offenses with which they are charged.
Issues: 1. Whether the arresting officers had complied with the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Whether the general diary entry must include the fact that the arrested person had been informed of the grounds of arrest and the full particulars of the offenses with which they are charged.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the constitutional and statutory requirements of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest and the particulars of the offense must be strictly complied with. 2. The court interpreted Section 44 of the Police Act, 1961 and clause (5) of Regulation 295 of the U. P. Police Regulations to require that the general diary entry after the arrest of a person must include the fact that the arrested person had been informed of the grounds of arrest and the full particulars of the offenses with which they are charged.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions of Rama Kant and Mohan Lal and directed their release, but it dismissed the writ petition of Shamsher Bahadur Singh.
These 3 writ petitions raise a common question and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to set the petitioners at liberty.
3. Rama Kant was arrested on 8-8-87 at 9 p. m. by Inspector, Panaa Lal Gupta of Police Station Maharajganj, district Rae Bareli in connection with Case Crime No. 119 of 1987 under Section 302, I. P. C. of that Police Station. The petitioners case is that the arresting officer did not comply with the provisions of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India or of Section 50 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inasmuch as he had not been inform ed of the grounds of his arrest, nor of the particulars of the offence for which he was wanted.
4. Petitioner Mohan Lal was arrested on 18-7-1987 at 9 p. m. by S.-L, Zahoorul Haque of Police Station Bhadokhar, district Rae Bareli in connection with Case Crime No. 148 of 1987 under Section 302,i. P. C.
5. Shamsher Bahadur Singh alias Chhuttan Singh was arrested on 21-3-1987 at about 1 a. m. by S.-L, P. N. Singh of Police Station Colonelganj, district Gonda in connection with Case Crime No. 173 of 1987 under Section 302, I. P. C.
6. Both, Mohan Lal and Shamsher Bahadur Singh have pleaded, like Rama Kant, that their detention is invalid because the arresting officers did not comply with the provisions of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. In the case of Rama Kant, the affidavit was filed by his father, Sharda Prasad Tewari stating that Rama Kant had not been informed of the grounds of his arrest, nor had been furnished with full particulars of
the offence for which he was wanted. The arresting officer, Panna Lal Gupta s filed a counter-affidavit in which he stated that he had informed the petitioner about the particulars of the offence. He also filed copy of the general diary entry, Annexure CA-1. The Statement in the counter-affidavit was specifically denied by the petitioner, Rama Kant himself in his rejoinder-affidavit.
8. In the case of Mohan Lal, the affidavit was filed by his brother-in-law, Shitla Prasad stating that the petitioner had not been informed of the grounds of arrest, for furnished with the particulars of the offence for which he was arrested. Counter-affidavit filed by Zahoorul Haque, the arresting officer mentioned that he had informed about these particulars, a copy of the case diary was filed by Zahoorul Haque in this regard. The Statement of Zahoorul Haque was rebutted by the petitioner himself in his rejoinder- affidavit.
9. In the case of Shamsher Bahadur Singh, the affidavit was filed by his next friend and pairokar, Pradeep Kumar Singh stating that the petitioner had not been informed of the grounds of his arrest, nor the particulars of the offence were communicated to him. The Investigating Officer, P. N. Singh filed a counter-affidavit in which he stated that he had informed the petitioner of the grounds ; he also filed the copies of the entries in the general diary, the memo of recovery of a gun from the petitioner and of the entry in the case diary. The rejoinder-affidavit in rebuttal of the averments made by P. N. Singh was made by the petitioner himself.
10. It is not disputed that the constitutional requirement under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India is that as soon as may be, after arrest the person who is arrested, shall be informed of the grounds of arrest and that under Section 50 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the arresting police officer is bound to "forthwith communicate, to the arrested person the full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest". The question for determination in each of the cases is whether the petitioner was informed of the grounds and furnished with the full particulars.
11. It is plain enough that so far as the testimony is concerned, there
