2016 Supreme(Manipur) 143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
N. KOTISWAR SINGH & KH. NOBIN SINGH, JJ.
Shri Khomdram Ratan Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Manipur, through the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) – Respondent
W.P. (Cril) No. 28 of 2016
Decided On : 23-08-2016

The police have the authority to issue Press Notes seeking information from the general public for effecting arrest of an accused person and recovery of incriminating material evidences at the initial stage of the investigation, independent of the power of the Court. However, the use of expressions like “WANTED”, “wanted criminal” and “absconding” in such Press Notes is not permissible as it may violate the fundamental rights of the accused person.

Headnote:

The Court held that the police had the authority to issue the impugned Press Note and that the Press Note was issued by the Police in conformity with the provisions of Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code and was not violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the use of the expressions “WANTED”, “wanted criminal” and “absconding” in the Press Note was not permissible and directed their deletion from the Press Note.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a convenor of the Joint Committee on Inner Line Permit System (JCILPS), was charged with committing cognizable offences under Sections 121/121A/109/120-B/148/149/152/153- A/188/341-IPC, 3 P.DPP Act and Section 18/20 UA(P) Act. The police issued a Press Note seeking information and assistance from the general public about the whereabouts of the petitioner for effecting his arrest. The Press Note used the words/expressions “WANTED”, “wanted criminal” “absconding”. The petitioner challenged the Press Note contending that it was issued in violation of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., that it violated his fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and that it was issued mala-fide to tarnish his name and portray the JCILPS movement in a poor light.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the police had the authority to issue the impugned Press Note and that the Press Note was issued by the Police in conformity with the provisions of Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code and was not violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the use of the expressions “WANTED”, “wanted criminal” and “absconding” in the Press Note was not permissible and directed their deletion from the Press Note.

Issues: 1. Whether the police had the authority to issue the impugned Press Note? 2. Whether the Press Note was issued by the Police in conformity with the provisions of Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code? 3. Whether the Press Note was violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution? 4. Whether the use of the expressions “WANTED”, “wanted criminal” and “absconding” in the Press Note was permissible?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the police had the authority to issue the impugned Press Note as it was issued for the purpose of soliciting information from the general public for effecting immediate recovery and arrest of the petitioner and recovery of other incriminating material evidences at the initial stage of the investigation. The Court also held that such a notification seeking information of the whereabouts of a person could be issued by the police in exercise of powers conferred by Section 41 and Section 157 of the Cr.P.C., independent of the power of the Court. 2. The Court held that the Press Note was issued in conformity with the provisions of Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the stage of invoking Section 82 of the Code was yet to arrive. The Court also held that the police had not yet invoked the provisions of Section 82 at this stage and were seeking arrest of the petitioner by virtue of the power conferred under Section 41 read with Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. 3. The Court held that the Press Note was not violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution as the petitioner had been charged with committing serious cognizable offences and was under investigation and could be also subjected to arrest in course of investigation. The Court also held that the impugned Press Note did not amount to prohibiting his right to movement as it was issued seeking information about his whereabouts. 4. The Court held that the use of the expressions “WANTED”, “wanted criminal” and “absconding” in the Press Note was not permissible as the petitioner had not been convicted for committing any crime by a competent criminal Court. The Court also held that the use of these expressions was not necessary for the purpose of issuing the Press Note and could have been avoided.

Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the writ petition by directing deletion of the words “wanted criminal” used in the Subject of the Press Note and the words “The individual is absconding” in the last line of the first paragraph of the main body of the Press Note. The Court also directed that henceforth the use of the word “WANTED” should be normally qualified with the word “INFORMATION” or such word to indicate the real purpose for which any such Press Note/Press Release/Publication is issued.