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

2017 Supreme(All) 1414

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ajai Lamba, Vijay Laxmi, JJ.
Narendra Singh Rawat - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Others - Respondent
Misc. Bench No. 2383 of 2017
Decided On : 13-02-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Aniruddha Kumar Singh, Kalika Prasad Sharma, Santosh Kumar Tripathi
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance individual liberty and societal order in exercising the power of arrest, as emphasized in the provisions of Section 41 and Section 41 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnote:

Certiorari - Quashing of FIR under Essential Commodities Act - Section 3 /7 Essential Commodities Act - Section 41 and Section 41 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273

Fact of the Case:

The petition seeks the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 3 /7 Essential Commodities Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court considered the provisions of Section 41 and Section 41 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as provided by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, emphasizing the need to balance individual liberty and societal order in exercising the power of arrest.

Issues: The issues revolved around the necessity of arrest under the Essential Commodities Act and the compliance with the provisions of Section 41 and Section 41 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for police officers to justify the reasons for arrest and comply with the provisions of Section 41 and Section 41 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as outlined in the Arnesh Kumar case.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of as not pressed based on the stand taken by the petitioner's counsel in the context of the judgment in Arnesh Kumar's case.

JUDGMENT

1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report bearing Case Crime No.0002 of 2017, under Section 3 /7 Essential Commodities Act, Police Station - Lonikatra, District - Barabanki.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the State states that the offence(s) allegedly committed entail a sentence up to seven years. In such circumstances, the investigating officer shall ensure compliance of provisions of Section 41 and Section 41 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as provided by Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 .

3. We have considered the stand of learned counsel for the State. In Arnesh Kumar?s case(supra) the following(relevant portion) has been held: -

?6. Law Commissions, Police Commissions and this Court in a large number of judgments emphasized the need to maintain a balance between individual liberty and societal order while exercising the power of arrest. Police officers make arrest as they believe that they possess the power to do so. As the arrest curtails freedom, brings humiliation and casts scars forever, we feel differently. We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. Apart from power to arrest, the police officers must be able to justify the reasons thereof. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the Legislature did not find any improvement. Numbers of arrest have not decreased. Ultimately, the Parliament had to intervene and on the recommendation of the 177th Report of the Law Commission submitted in the year 2001, Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ?Cr.PC), in the present form came to be enacted. It is interesting to note that such a recommendation was made by the Law Commission in its 152nd and 154th Report submitted as back in the year 1994. The value of the proportionality permeates the amendment relating to arrest.

7. ---Hindi---

7.1 From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A Police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

7.2 Law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. Law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

7.3 In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top