advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Sec.41 and Sec.41 A and Sec.57 of Cr.P.C. - No police arrest a person below the 7 years punishment like offence 498 A I.P.C and sec.3 of Dowry prohibition Act etc., - Every police officer must issued a notice under sec.41 A to the accused - failure of which liable for contempt of court before concerned High court - Magistrate also directed to observe the conditions of Sec.41 and 41 A - if arrest is not with in the parameter - release the accused immediately - it not only applies to Marriage offences but also to all offence less than 7 years punishment = ARNESH KUMAR ..... APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. .... RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41736

 Sec.41 and Sec.41 A and Sec.57 of Cr.P.C. - No police arrest a person below the 7 years punishment  like offence 498 A I.P.C and sec.3 of Dowry prohibition Act etc., - Every police officer must issued a notice under sec.41 A to the accused - failure of which liable for contempt of court before concerned High court - Magistrate also directed to observe the conditions of Sec.41 and 41 A - if arrest is not with in the parameter - release the accused immediately - it not only applies to Marriage offences but also to all offence less than 7 years punishment = 

WHEN POLICE CAN ARREST AT THE TIME OF INVESTIGATION

  “41. When police may arrest without  warrant.-(1)  Any  police  officer  may
without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any  person


(a)x         x          x         x          x      x

(b)against  whom  a  reasonable  complaint  has  been  made,   or   credible
information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he  has
committed a cognizable offence  punishable  with  imprisonment  for  a  term
which may be less than seven years  or  which  may  extend  to  seven  years
whether with or without fine, if the  following  conditions  are  satisfied,
namely :-

(i)   x x x x x

(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary –

to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or

for proper investigation of the offence; or

to prevent  such  person  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  any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so  as  to  dissuade  him  from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or

as unless such person is  arrested,  his  presence  in  the  Court  whenever
required cannot be ensured,



and the police officer shall record while making such  arrest,  his  reasons
in writing:

Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where  the  arrest  of  a
person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record  the
reasons in writing for not making the arrest.



X           x           x         x          x           x



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.   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.  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.  In pith and core, the  police  office  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  enumerated  above  is
satisfied, the power of arrest needs  to  be  exercised.   In  fine,  before
arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the  basis
of information and material that the  accused  has  committed  the  offence.
Apart from this, the police officer has to be  satisfied  further  that  the
arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes  envisaged  by  sub-clauses
(a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.PC.

PRIOR NOTICE WITH OUT ARREST IN LESS THAN 7 YEARS PUNISHMENT CASES

“41A. Notice of appearance before police  officer.-(1)  The  police  officer
shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required  under  the
provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue a  notice  directing  the
person against whom a  reasonable  complaint  has  been  made,  or  credible
information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he  has
committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other  place
as may be specified in the notice.



(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall  be  the  duty  of
that person to comply with the terms of the notice.

(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the  notice,  he
shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to  in  the  notice
unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer  is  of  the  opinion
that he ought to be arrested.



(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the  terms  of  the
notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may,  subject
to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this  behalf,
arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.”



            Aforesaid provision makes it clear that in all cases  where  the
arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1),  Cr.PC,  the  police
officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to  appear  before
him at a specified place and time.  Law obliges such an  accused  to  appear
before the police officer and it further mandates that if  such  an  accused
complies with the terms of notice he  shall  not  be  arrested,  unless  for
reasons to be recorded, the police office is of the opinion that the  arrest
is necessary.  At this stage also, the condition  precedent  for  arrest  as
envisaged under Section 41 Cr.PC has to be complied and shall be subject  to
the same scrutiny by the Magistrate as aforesaid.

IN COURT WHEN PRODUCED FOR JUDICIAL CUSTODY - ROLE OF COURT
 Before  a  Magistrate  authorises
detention under Section 167, Cr.PC, he has to be first  satisfied  that  the
arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and all  the  constitutional
rights of the person arrested is satisfied.  If the arrest effected  by  the
police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the  Code,
Magistrate is duty bound not to authorise his further detention and  release
the accused.  In other  words,  when  an  accused  is  produced  before  the
Magistrate,  the police officer effecting the arrest is required to  furnish
to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons and its  conclusions  for  arrest  and
the Magistrate in turn is to  be  satisfied  that  condition  precedent  for
arrest under Section 41 Cr.PC has been satisfied and it is  only  thereafter
that he will authorise the detention of an accused.  The  Magistrate  before
authorising detention will record its own satisfaction, may be in brief  but
 the said satisfaction must reflect from  its  order.   It  shall  never  be
based upon the ipse dixit of the police officer, for example,  in  case  the
police officer considers the arrest necessary to prevent  such  person  from
committing any further offence or for proper investigation of  the  case  or
for preventing an accused from tampering with evidence or making  inducement
etc., the police officer shall furnish to  the  Magistrate  the  facts,  the
reasons and materials on the basis of which the police officer  had  reached
its conclusion.  Those shall be perused by the Magistrate while  authorising
the detention and only after recording its satisfaction in writing that  the
Magistrate will authorise the detention of the accused.   In  fine,  when  a
suspect is  arrested  and  produced  before  a  Magistrate  for  authorising
detention, the Magistrate has  to  address  the  question  whether  specific
reasons have been recorded for arrest and if so, prima facie  those  reasons
are relevant and secondly a reasonable conclusion could at  all  be  reached
by the police officer that one or the  other  conditions  stated  above  are
attracted.  To  this  limited  extent  the  Magistrate  will  make  judicial
scrutiny.
Conclusion 
We are of the opinion that if  the  provisions  of  Section  41,
Cr.PC which authorises the police officer to arrest an  accused  without  an
order from a Magistrate and without a  warrant  are  scrupulously  enforced,
the wrong committed by the  police  officers  intentionally  or  unwittingly
would be reversed and the number of cases which come to the Court for  grant
of anticipatory bail will substantially reduce.  We would like to  emphasise
that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or  most
of the reasons contained  in  Section  41  Cr.PC  for  effecting  arrest  be
discouraged and discontinued.

Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure  that  police  officers  do  not
arrest accused unnecessarily  and  Magistrate  do  not  authorise  detention
casually and mechanically.  In order to ensure what we have observed  above,
we give the following direction:

All  the  State  Governments  to  instruct  its  police  officers   not   to
automatically arrest  when  a  case  under  Section  498-A  of  the  IPC  is
registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity  for  arrest  under
the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;

All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified  sub-
clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and  furnish  the
reasons   and   materials   which    necessitated    the    arrest,    while
forwarding/producing  the  accused  before  the   Magistrate   for   further
detention;

The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall  peruse  the
report furnished by the police officer in terms  aforesaid  and  only  after
recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

The decision not to arrest  an  accused,  be  forwarded  to  the  Magistrate
within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case  with  a  copy
to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of  police  of
the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A  of  Cr.PC  be  served  on  the
accused within two weeks from the date of institution  of  the  case,  which
may be extended by the Superintendent of Police  of  the  District  for  the
reasons to be recorded in writing;

Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart  from  rendering
the police officers concerned liable for  departmental  action,  they  shall
also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted  before
High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

Authorising  detention  without  recording  reasons  as  aforesaid  by   the
judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable  for  departmental  action  by
the appropriate High Court.

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply  to  the
cases under  Section  498-A  of  the  I.P.C.  or  Section  4  of  the  Dowry
Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also  such  cases  where  offence  is
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than  seven  years
or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

    We direct that a copy of this  judgment  be  forwarded  to  the  Chief
Secretaries as also the  Director  Generals  of  Police  of  all  the  State
Governments and the Union Territories and the Registrar General of  all  the
High Courts for onward transmission and ensuring its compliance.



      By  order  dated  31st  of  October,  2013,  this  Court  had  granted
provisional bail to the appellant on certain conditions. We make this  order
absolute.



In the result, we allow this appeal, making our aforesaid order  dated  31st
October, 2013 absolute; with the directions aforesaid.


2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41736

                                                               REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1277  OF 2014
              (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9127 of 2013)


ARNESH KUMAR                            ..... APPELLANT

                                   VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.            .... RESPONDENTS


                               J U D G M E N T


Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

      The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 498-A  of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC)  and  Section  4  of
the Dowry Prohibition  Act,  1961.   The  maximum  sentence  provided  under
Section 498-A IPC is imprisonment for a  term  which  may  extend  to  three
years and fine whereas the maximum sentence provided under Section 4 of  the
Dowry Prohibition Act is two years and with fine.

      Petitioner happens to be the husband of respondent no.2  Sweta  Kiran.
The marriage between them was solemnized on 1st  July, 2007. His attempt  to
secure anticipatory bail has failed and hence he has  knocked  the  door  of
this Court by way of this Special Leave Petition.



      Leave granted.



      In sum and substance, allegation levelled  by  the  wife  against  the
appellant  is  that  demand  of  Rupees  eight  lacs,  a  maruti   car,   an
air-conditioner, television set etc.  was  made  by  her  mother-in-law  and
father-in-law and when this fact was brought to the appellant’s  notice,  he
supported his mother and threatened to marry another  woman.   It  has  been
alleged that she was  driven  out  of  the  matrimonial  home  due  to  non-
fulfilment of the demand of dowry.



      Denying these allegations, the appellant preferred an application  for
anticipatory bail which was earlier rejected by the learned  Sessions  Judge
and thereafter by the High Court.



      There is phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent  years.
 The institution of marriage is greatly revered in  this  country.   Section
498-A of the IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the  menace  of
harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and  his  relatives.   The
fact that Section 498-A is a cognizable and non-bailable  offence  has  lent
it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as  weapons
rather than shield by disgruntled wives.  The simplest way to harass  is  to
get the husband and his relatives  arrested  under  this  provision.   In  a
quite number of cases, bed-ridden grand-fathers  and  grand-mothers  of  the
husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.   “Crime  in
India  2012   Statistics”  published  by  National  Crime  Records   Bureau,
Ministry of Home Affairs shows arrest of 1,97,762  persons  all  over  India
during the year 2012 for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC,  9.4%  more
than the  year  2011.   Nearly  a  quarter  of  those  arrested  under  this
provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951  which  depicts  that  mothers  and
sisters of the husbands were liberally included in their  arrest  net.   Its
share is 6% out of the total persons arrested  under  the  crimes  committed
under Indian Penal Code.  It accounts for 4.5%  of  total  crimes  committed
under  different  sections  of  penal  code,  more  than  any  other  crimes
excepting theft and hurt.   The  rate  of  charge-sheeting  in  cases  under
Section 498A, IPC is as high as 93.6%, while the  conviction  rate  is  only
15%, which is lowest across all  heads.   As  many  as  3,72,706  cases  are
pending trial of which on current estimate, nearly 3,17,000  are  likely  to
result in acquittal.



      Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and  cast  scars  forever.
Law makers know it so also the police.  There is a battle  between  the  law
makers and the police and it seems that police has not  learnt  its  lesson;
the lesson implicit and embodied in the Cr.PC.  It has not come out  of  its
colonial  image  despite  six  decades  of  independence,  it   is   largely
considered as a tool of harassment, oppression and surely not  considered  a
friend of public.  The need for caution in exercising the drastic  power  of
arrest has been emphasized time and again by  Courts  but  has  not  yielded
desired result. Power to arrest greatly  contributes  to  its  arrogance  so
also the failure of the Magistracy to check it.  Not only  this,  the  power
of arrest is one  of  the  lucrative  sources  of  police  corruption.   The
attitude to arrest first and then proceed with the rest is  despicable.   It
has become a handy tool to the police officers who lack sensitivity  or  act
with oblique motive.

      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.  As the offence  with  which  we
are concerned in the present appeal, provides for a  maximum  punishment  of
imprisonment which may extend to seven years  and  fine,  Section  41(1)(b),
Cr.PC which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows:

“41. When police may arrest without  warrant.-(1)  Any  police  officer  may
without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any  person


(a)x         x          x         x          x      x

(b)against  whom  a  reasonable  complaint  has  been  made,   or   credible
information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he  has
committed a cognizable offence  punishable  with  imprisonment  for  a  term
which may be less than seven years  or  which  may  extend  to  seven  years
whether with or without fine, if the  following  conditions  are  satisfied,
namely :-

(i)   x x x x x

(ii) the police officer is satisfied that such arrest is necessary –

to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or

for proper investigation of the offence; or

to prevent  such  person  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  any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so  as  to  dissuade  him  from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer; or

as unless such person is  arrested,  his  presence  in  the  Court  whenever
required cannot be ensured,



and the police officer shall record while making such  arrest,  his  reasons
in writing:

Provided that a police officer shall, in all cases where  the  arrest  of  a
person is not required under the provisions of this sub-section, record  the
reasons in writing for not making the arrest.



X           x           x         x          x           x



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.   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.  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.  In pith and core, the  police  office  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  enumerated  above  is
satisfied, the power of arrest needs  to  be  exercised.   In  fine,  before
arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the  basis
of information and material that the  accused  has  committed  the  offence.
Apart from this, the police officer has to be  satisfied  further  that  the
arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes  envisaged  by  sub-clauses
(a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.PC.



            An accused arrested  without  warrant  by  the  police  has  the
constitutional right under Article 22(2) of the Constitution  of  India  and
Section 57, Cr.PC to be produced before the Magistrate  without  unnecessary
delay and in no circumstances beyond 24 hours excluding the  time  necessary
for the journey.  During the course of investigation of a case,  an  accused
can be kept in detention beyond a  period  of  24  hours  only  when  it  is
authorised by the Magistrate in exercise of power under Section  167  Cr.PC.
The power to authorise detention is a very solemn function.  It affects  the
liberty and freedom of citizens and needs to be exercised  with  great  care
and caution. Our experience tells us that  it  is  not  exercised  with  the
seriousness it deserves. In many of the cases, detention is authorised in  a
routine,  casual  and  cavalier  manner.   Before  a  Magistrate  authorises
detention under Section 167, Cr.PC, he has to be first  satisfied  that  the
arrest made is legal and in accordance with law and all  the  constitutional
rights of the person arrested is satisfied.  If the arrest effected  by  the
police officer does not satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the  Code,
Magistrate is duty bound not to authorise his further detention and  release
the accused.  In other  words,  when  an  accused  is  produced  before  the
Magistrate,  the police officer effecting the arrest is required to  furnish
to the Magistrate, the facts, reasons and its  conclusions  for  arrest  and
the Magistrate in turn is to  be  satisfied  that  condition  precedent  for
arrest under Section 41 Cr.PC has been satisfied and it is  only  thereafter
that he will authorise the detention of an accused.  The  Magistrate  before
authorising detention will record its own satisfaction, may be in brief  but
 the said satisfaction must reflect from  its  order.   It  shall  never  be
based upon the ipse dixit of the police officer, for example,  in  case  the
police officer considers the arrest necessary to prevent  such  person  from
committing any further offence or for proper investigation of  the  case  or
for preventing an accused from tampering with evidence or making  inducement
etc., the police officer shall furnish to  the  Magistrate  the  facts,  the
reasons and materials on the basis of which the police officer  had  reached
its conclusion.  Those shall be perused by the Magistrate while  authorising
the detention and only after recording its satisfaction in writing that  the
Magistrate will authorise the detention of the accused.   In  fine,  when  a
suspect is  arrested  and  produced  before  a  Magistrate  for  authorising
detention, the Magistrate has  to  address  the  question  whether  specific
reasons have been recorded for arrest and if so, prima facie  those  reasons
are relevant and secondly a reasonable conclusion could at  all  be  reached
by the police officer that one or the  other  conditions  stated  above  are
attracted.  To  this  limited  extent  the  Magistrate  will  make  judicial
scrutiny.



             Another  provision  i.e.  Section  41A  Cr.PC  aimed  to  avoid
unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on accused requires  to
be vitalised.   Section 41A  as  inserted  by  Section  6  of  the  Code  of
Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008(Act 5 of 2009), which  is  relevant
in the context reads as follows:

“41A. Notice of appearance before police  officer.-(1)  The  police  officer
shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required  under  the
provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41, issue a  notice  directing  the
person against whom a  reasonable  complaint  has  been  made,  or  credible
information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he  has
committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other  place
as may be specified in the notice.



(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall  be  the  duty  of
that person to comply with the terms of the notice.

(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the  notice,  he
shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to  in  the  notice
unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer  is  of  the  opinion
that he ought to be arrested.



(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the  terms  of  the
notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may,  subject
to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this  behalf,
arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.”



            Aforesaid provision makes it clear that in all cases  where  the
arrest of a person is not required under Section 41(1),  Cr.PC,  the  police
officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to  appear  before
him at a specified place and time.  Law obliges such an  accused  to  appear
before the police officer and it further mandates that if  such  an  accused
complies with the terms of notice he  shall  not  be  arrested,  unless  for
reasons to be recorded, the police office is of the opinion that the  arrest
is necessary.  At this stage also, the condition  precedent  for  arrest  as
envisaged under Section 41 Cr.PC has to be complied and shall be subject  to
the same scrutiny by the Magistrate as aforesaid.

            We are of the opinion that if  the  provisions  of  Section  41,
Cr.PC which authorises the police officer to arrest an  accused  without  an
order from a Magistrate and without a  warrant  are  scrupulously  enforced,
the wrong committed by the  police  officers  intentionally  or  unwittingly
would be reversed and the number of cases which come to the Court for  grant
of anticipatory bail will substantially reduce.  We would like to  emphasise
that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or  most
of the reasons contained  in  Section  41  Cr.PC  for  effecting  arrest  be
discouraged and discontinued.

Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure  that  police  officers  do  not
arrest accused unnecessarily  and  Magistrate  do  not  authorise  detention
casually and mechanically.  In order to ensure what we have observed  above,
we give the following direction:

All  the  State  Governments  to  instruct  its  police  officers   not   to
automatically arrest  when  a  case  under  Section  498-A  of  the  IPC  is
registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity  for  arrest  under
the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;

All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified  sub-
clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and  furnish  the
reasons   and   materials   which    necessitated    the    arrest,    while
forwarding/producing  the  accused  before  the   Magistrate   for   further
detention;

The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall  peruse  the
report furnished by the police officer in terms  aforesaid  and  only  after
recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

The decision not to arrest  an  accused,  be  forwarded  to  the  Magistrate
within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case  with  a  copy
to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of  police  of
the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A  of  Cr.PC  be  served  on  the
accused within two weeks from the date of institution  of  the  case,  which
may be extended by the Superintendent of Police  of  the  District  for  the
reasons to be recorded in writing;

Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart  from  rendering
the police officers concerned liable for  departmental  action,  they  shall
also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted  before
High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

Authorising  detention  without  recording  reasons  as  aforesaid  by   the
judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable  for  departmental  action  by
the appropriate High Court.



We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply  to  the
cases under  Section  498-A  of  the  I.P.C.  or  Section  4  of  the  Dowry
Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also  such  cases  where  offence  is
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than  seven  years
or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.



      We direct that a copy of this  judgment  be  forwarded  to  the  Chief
Secretaries as also the  Director  Generals  of  Police  of  all  the  State
Governments and the Union Territories and the Registrar General of  all  the
High Courts for onward transmission and ensuring its compliance.



      By  order  dated  31st  of  October,  2013,  this  Court  had  granted
provisional bail to the appellant on certain conditions. We make this  order
absolute.



In the result, we allow this appeal, making our aforesaid order  dated  31st
October, 2013 absolute; with the directions aforesaid.



   ………………………………………………………………J

   (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)



                           ………………………………………………………………J

                                    (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)



NEW DELHI,
July 2, 2014.




-----------------------
21





No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.