GOPALANACHARI versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 1271 · Decided: 12-11-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,}' 
·.' 
" .. 
GOP ALANA CHARI 
v. 
STA TE OF KERALA 
November 12, 1980 
A 
rv. R. KR1sHNA IYER; R. s. PATHAK AND o. CH1NNAPPA REoov, )JJ 
n 
Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 110-Scope of-Court must \insist 
on specificity ofi facts. 
. 
In a letter addressed to one of the Judges of this Court (V. R. Krishna 
Iyer, J.) the petitioner complained that he had been illegally detained under 
section I IO, Cr. P. C. 
In response to this· Court's notiee the Superintendent 
of Sub-Jail stated that the petitioner was "a well known ·.habitual prisoner" 
of the Kerala State and was known as "thief Go pal an". 
. 
. 
~ 
. 
In his reply the detenu stated that bemg unable , to see ot hear because 
of liis extreme old age of 71 years he was staying in his house ,in his· native 
place and that one night a policeman took him from his house ·in a van to 
the police station saying that he had to inquire something from him and after 
putting him in the lock up for 10 days produced °tJim before the Court as a 
person having been 
arrest~d the previous night. 
He further stated that the, 
charge against him was th'at on the night patrol one night a policema~ found 
him hiding in a verandah of a shop and that on being asked hi> name and 
.t1ddress he gave one name first and .another name a little later and that on 
inquiry it was found that he was an ex-criminal not to be let free. 
. 
Allowing the petition. 
HELD : In the interests of justice proceedings against the petitioner mtist 
be dropped.' Section 110 cannot b~ permitted . to pick up the homeless and 
the' have-nots as it did under British subjeetioi:i beeau$e today to be poor is 
not a crime in this country. [1274 Fl 
Article 21 insists that no man shall be deprived of his life or personal 
liberty except according. to the procedure established 
by law. 
ln Maneka 
Gandhi v. Union of India (1978] l SCC 248 this Court in clearest terffis 
strengthened tl:e rule of law v,is-a-vi,s the personal liberty by insisting on the 
procedure contemplated by Art. 21 
having to be 
fair and reasonable not 
vagarious, vague and arbitrary. (1274 G] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The constitutional survival of section 110 depends on ·its obedience to 
A;·t. 21. 
Words of wide. import, vague amplitude and far too generalised to 
G" 
be safe in the hands of the Police cannof be constitutionalised in. tiie. context 
of Art. 21 unless re~d d~wn to be as a fair and reas-Onable leg/sl~tio~ with 
:reverence for human rights. 
A glance at section 110 shows that on'ly a narrow 
signification can be attached to. the. words in ;clauses (a) to . (g) "namely "by 
habit ,a robber", "by habit a receiver of stole.~ p~operty"; -"habit~ally protect~ 
or harbours thieves", 
"habitually ~coiiirriits ;9r' attempts to coininit .or .. abets 
tii'e commission of ......... " "is 'so desperate'. an'.d dangerous as 'tci 'tender his 
ff 
being at large without security hazardous to the community". 
Expressions 
like these cannot be flung in the face, of· a. man with faxity of semantics. The 
Court must insist on specificity .of''.f~t~ · and · be ;atisfied 'that" ~ne swallow 
1272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
l1981] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
does not make a summer and a consistent course of conduct convincing enough 
to draw the rigorous inference that by confirmed habit which is second nature, 
the counter-petitioner is sure to commit the offences mentioned if he is not 
kept captive. Preventive sections privative of freedo111, if incautiously proved 
by indolent judicial processes, may do deeper injury. They will have the effect 
of detention of one who has not been held guilty of a crime and carry with 
it the judicial 
imprimatur, to boot. 
To• call a man 
dangerous is 
itself 
B 
dangerous; 
to 
call a man desperate is to affix a 
desperate adjective to 
stigmatise a person as hazardous to the community is itself a judicial hazard 
unless compulsive testimony carrying credence is abundantly available. [1275' 
G·H, 1276 E-G] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ORIGINAL JuRISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 350 of 1980. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution) 
M. M. Abdul Khoder, V. M. Tarkunde arid EMS Enam for the 
Petitioner. 
V. J. Francis for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J._..:.The lament of the petitioner, Gopalanachari,. 
a septuagenarian languishing in a Kerala prison, is that in his case 
the law has become lawless and justice has fallen as the first casualty, 
a lot shared by several other prison-mates. 
He wrote a letter da

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.