AHMED NOORMOHMED BHATTI versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 879 · Decided: 16-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

AHMED NOORMOHMED BHATTI 
,A. 
V. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
MARCH 16, 2005 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
,B 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : 
Section 151-Constitutional validity of-Arrest and detention of person 
without an order from Magistrate and without warrant under Section 151- C 
·Held : Not arbitrary or ultravires the Constitutional provisions as the object 
thereunder is to prevent the commission of any cognizable offence-Constitution 
of India, 1950-Articles 21 and 22 . 
. . 4 
Section 151-Criminal proceedings initiated by private party-Nothing 
to show that police officials abused their authority under Section 151_..:.Held I) 
: High Court rightly refused to quash the criminal proceedings. 
Petitioner filed petition for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated 
against him on complaint of respondents 5, 6 and 7 and for a declaration 
that Section 151 CrPC was unconstitutional and ultra vires. Hig~ Court E 
dismissed the petition holding that detention under Section 151 was only 
for a limited period of 24 hours for the purpose mentioned therein and 
did not offend the provisions of Constitution and there was no ground to 
quash the proceedings. Aggrieved petitioner filed the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 151 ofCrPC is not unconstitutional and ultravires 
the constitutional provisions. [887-B) 
F 
2.1. Section 151 lays down the conditions under which a police officer 
may arrest a person without an order from a Magistrate and without a G 
warrant. A Police officer can do so only if he has come to. know of a design 
of the person concerned to commit any cognizable offence. A further 
condition for the exercise of such power, is that the arrest should be made 
only if it appears to the police officer concerned that the commission of 
879 
H 
880 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A the offence cannot be otherwise prevented. If these conditions are not 
fulfilled and a person is arrested under Section 151, the arresting authority 
may be exposed to proceedings under the law. [883-A-B, CJ 
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992] Suppl. 1 SCC 335, referred 
to. 
B 
2.2. A person so arrested shall be detained in custody for a period 
not exceeding 24 hours. In the absen~e of anything else, on expiry of 24 
hours, he must be released. The release, however, is not insisted upon only 
when his further detention is required or authorized under any other 
provision of the Code or of any other law for the time being in force. The 
C detention thereafter is not under Section 151 CrPC. Section 151, therefore, 
only provides for arrest of a person to prevent the commission of a 
cognizable offence by him. The provision cannot be said to be either 
arbitrary or infringing upon the fundamental rights of a citizen under 
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. (883-C-D, E-Fl 
D 
·2.3. The statutory guidelines in-built in Section 151, read with the 
requirement laid down in Joginder Kumar's case* and D.K. Basu 's case** 
provide an assurance that the power shall not be abused and in case of 
abuse, the authority concerned shall be adequately punished. A provision 
cannot be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary and therefore 
E unconstitutional merely because the authority vested with the power may 
abuse his authority. (886-G-H; 887-A) 
*Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 260 and 
**D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, [1997) 1 SCC 416, relied on. 
p 
3. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner were 
initiated by private persons, namely respondents 5 to 7. Police authorities, 
namely respondents 2 to 4, were performing the statutory duties enjoined 
upon them. Those proceedings were not motivated by any personal 
animosity of the police officials concerned. The High Court rightly came 
to the conclusion that those Proceedings do not deserve to be quashed 
G under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the 
CrPC. (887-C, DJ 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
109 of 2001. 
A.N. BHATTI v. ST ATE OF GUJARAT [SINGH, J.] 
881 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.96 of the Gujarat High Court A 
in Crl. Appln. No. 95 of 1996. 
Arvind K. Nigam, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Ms. Shomila Bakshi for the, 
Appellant. 
Sashank Adhyaru, Ms.Hemantika Wahi, Madhukar Varma, Ms. Archna B 
Palkar Khopde, Abijat P. Medh, Assem Mehrotra, Ashok Shan, Mrs.Sunita 
Sharma and Ms.Sushma Suri for the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.