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

2012 Supreme(UK) 482

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khekar
Criminal Appeal No. 1601 of 2012
SUBHASHREE DAS @ MILLI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 05.10.2012

Advocates:
For the Appellant : Mr. M.S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv., Mr. R. Ayam Perumal, Mr. K. Seshachary, Mr. Sukum K.S. Chandele, Mr. K.D. Rao, Advs. with him.
For the Respondents: Mr. Radha Shyam Jane, Mr. S. Panda, Advs.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226 — Jurisdiction of High Court under — Exercise of — Scope of — High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India would ordinarily not adjudicate a matter, where foundational facts are disputed.

        (Para 7)

       (B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 57 — Scope and ambit of — Petitioner arrested at 3.00 p.m. on 15.01.2010 and produced before the concerned Magistrate at 7.00 p.m. on 16.01.2010 — Taking into consideration the travel time, it cannot be stated that she remained in detention well beyond 24 hours from her arrest i.e., till her production before the Judicial Magistrate. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 9)

        ¼v½ Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 226 & mPp U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk & iz;ksx & foLrkj & mPp U;k;ky; u/Art. 226, Hkkjrh; lafo/kku fdlh ekeys dks vf/kfu.khZr ugha djrk tgk¡ vk/kkfjr rF; fookfnr gksA ¼izLrj 7½

       ¼c½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 57 & foLrkj vkSj ifjf/k & isVh’kuj 3 p.m. ij 15-1-2010 dks fxjrkj fd;k x;k vkSj eftLVªsV ds le{k ‘kke dks 7 cts] 16-1-2010 dks is’k fd;k x;k & ;k=k ds le; ij fopkj djus ds ckn ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd isVh’kuj dks fgjklr esa 24 ?kaVksa ls vf/kd j[kk x;k] mldh fxjrkjh ls eftLVªsV ds le{k is’k gksus rdA ¼izLrj 5] 6] 8] 9½

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. First Information Report no. 8 dated 14.1.2010 was registered at police station Balugaon under Sections 120B, 121, 121 A, 124A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 17 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Section 63 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 10, 13, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. According to the complainant (Balabhadra Pradhan, Sub Inspector of Police), on 14.1.2010 he alongwith Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police D.K. Pathnaik and B.K Behera, were on motor vehicle checking duty on National Highway no. 5. The complainant and his companions were also keeping a watch on the movement of anti social criminals. At about 5:20 PM, one Bollero pick-up van bearing registration no. PR-02 BA 5327, was seen by the police party, coming at a high speed from Bhubaneswar side. On being signalled, the said vehicle stopped, but one of its occupants alighted therefrom and started running away. The complainant chased him and was successful in detaining him. In view of the conduct of one of the occupants of the vehicle, and in view of the smell emanating from the vehicle, the complainant and his companions became suspicious, and therefore, decided to search the vehicle. In the vehicle, they found two persons including the driver. In the presence of the occupants, the vehicle was searched by the police party. Four packed cartons, one air bag and one hand bag were found in the vehicle. On opening the cartons, the complainant and his companions found “Maoist” leaflets and “Maoist” literature. The air bag contained jungle shoes. The small bag contained Naval related literature, one diary, and one Naxal secret letter. Cash of Rs.21,175/- was recovered from one of the occupants on his personal search. The police also found three mobile phones with SIM cards bearing numbers 9692197593, 9439071458 and 9692231528 in possession of the occupants of the van. The vehicle and materials aforementioned were seized by the police party. A seizure memo was prepared, which was got signed from the occupants of the van, and a copythereof was also handed over to them.

3. On being questioned, the occupants of the Bollero pick-up van allegedly disclosed to the police party, that the confiscated materials had been handed over to them by the appellant, who was allegedly the wife of Naxal leader, Sabyasachi Panda. According to the occupants of the vehicle, the aforesaid material was being taken to Bhanjanagar and the same was to be handed over to some unknown “Naxalites”. The material would thereupon be used for subversive activities in different parts of Orissa.

4. According to the appellant, she was arrested on account of her alleged involvement in the crime case arising out of First Information Report no. 8 dated 14.1.2010. She also asserted, that she had been arrested after sunset and before sunrise i.e., during the night intervening 14/15.1.2010. It was also the assertion of the appellant, that she was arrested without the permission of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. It was, therefore, contented that her arrest was illegal. It was further submitted, that the appellant was not produced before the concerned Court within 24 hours of her arrest. Accordingly, the prayer of the appellant has been, that her detention being illegal, she deserved to be adequately compensated. In fact, it is for the aforesaid reason, that the appellant had approached the

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, by filing Writ Petition (Crl.) no. 130 of 2010.

5. It was the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the crime case arising out of First Information Report no. 8 dated 14.1.2010, in which the appellant was arrested, has already been quashed by the High Court of Orissa, and as such, according to the appellant, it is obvious that her detention on the night intervening 14/15.1.2010 was wholly baseless and illegal. In order to seek compensation, two pleas were pressed by














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
whatsapp-icon Back to top