IN THE MATTER OF MADHU LIMAYE & ORS. versus NO RESPONDENT

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 154 · Decided: 18-12-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

IN THE MATTER OF MADHU LIMAYE & ORS. 
A 
December 18, 1968 
(J, C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A, N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Comtfrution of India, Art. 22(1)-Necessity of infornzing person 
cu:rested grounds for his arrest-Arrest illegal if Article not complied 
with-Order of renu;nd by 1nagistrate cannot cure constitutional infirniity. 
. The petitioners were arrested on Novrmber 6, 1968 at a rail\\•ay sta-
uon in Bihar. 
According to the Sub-Inspector's report recorded in the 
general diary they bad taken out a procession in defiance of a prohibitory 
order under s. 144 Cr. P.C. and bad been arrested under s. 151 Cr. P.C. 
It was stated that report was being submitted "under sections J 07 and 117 
of the Criminal Procedure Code and under s. 188 of the Indian Penal Code.'' 
On November 6 itself the first petitioner sent a petition under Art. 3 2 
of tbe Constitution in the form of a letter mentioning that he and his 
companions had been arrested but no grounds of 'arrest had been com-
municated to them and they had been merely told that the arrests had 
hcen made "under sections which were bailable". It was pray.:d that 
a writ of Habeas Corpus be issued. 
On November 7, 1968 a similar 
potition was sent by the petitioners from Jail. The additional fact given 
was that the arrested persons had been produced before the sub-Divi-
s.ional Magistrate who had on their refusal to. furnish bail remanded them 
to custody upto November 20, 1968. Rule nisi was is.sued by this Court 
to the State authorities to produce the petitioners before the. Court on 
November 25, 1968. 
On November 19, 1968 a first information report 
was rcco1".ied in which it was alleged that the petitioners had on Noven1· 
her 6, 1968 committed offences under ss. 188 and 143 of the Penal 
Code. 
In the return, before this Court it was explained on behalf of 
the State that the officer·in·charge while forwarding the arrested persons 
on November 6, 1968, had by mistake omitted to mention s. 143 J.P.C. 
\Vhich was a cognizable offence. 
It was urged that the order of remand 
passed· by the l\.1agistratc could not be said to be illegal merely· becausz 
of the omission of s. 143 1.P.C. in the order sheet when the police repo'rt 
ckarlv made out a case under that section. 
It was not claimed that the 
grt}urids of ;.1rrcst had been supplied to the petitioners. 
HELD : (i) When the arrests were effected by the. Sub-Inspector on 
November 6, 1968, the offences for which the arrests were made were 
not stated to be cognizable. 
In the various reports etc. the only offence. 
alleged was one under s. 188 I.P.C. which is non.cognizable. There 
\Vas force in the suggestion of the petitioners that the first information 
re·port came to be recorded formally on November 19, 
1968 
only be~ 
cause the matter had been brought to this Court by way of a petition 
un.dcr Art. 32 and a further petition had been moved in the High COurt 
under Art. 226. It was not proved that the arrest had been made at 
the direction of a Magistrate \Vho was present. It was somewhat sur-
prising that no affidavit of the said Magistrate had been filed. 
It would 
be legitimate to conclude that the_ arrest of the petition.ers \vas . effc~ted 
hv the police. officers concerned without any specific orders or d1rechons 
of" a ~lagistrate on November 6. 1968 for the offences and proceedings 
mentioned before in the various reports made prior to November 19, 1968. 
[159 D-E; 160 B-161 BJ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MAOHU LIMAYE, rN RE (Grover, J.) 
I 55 
(ii) The two requirements of cl. (I) of Art. 22 are meaut to afford 
the earliest opportunity to the arrested person to remove anr mistake. 
misapprehension or misunderstanding in the minds of the arresting autho-
rity and, also, to know exactly what the accusation against him is so that 
he can exercise the second right, namely, of consulting a legal practitioner 
of his choice and to be defen<led by him. Whenever the Article is not 
complied with the petitioner would be entitledi to a writ of Habeas Corpus 
directing his release. [162 E--163 CJ 
In the present case the return filed by the State did not contain any 
information as to when and by whom the petitioners were informed of 
the grounds of their arrest. 
It had not been contended on behalf of the 
State that the circumstances were such that the arrested persons must 
have known the. geperal nature of the alleged offences for which they had 
been arrested. 
The petitioners were therefore

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