LexJAGE RAM, INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. versus HANS RAJ MIDHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c. D E F G H JAGE RAM, INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. v. HANS AAJ MIDHA November 18. 1971 409 fP. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.] Judgment Expunging of remarks against authorities whose conduct conies into cons1deralion before courts-Principles to be foJ/oll'ed- Iiabeas Corpus-Duty of Court. ' The High Court in its order disposing of a habeas corpus petition stated that the detenu had been taken into custody on the 5th of May, J 968, that his arrest "had surreptitiously been" sworn to have taken place on the 10th of May, 1968, and that he was subjected to torture resulting in injuries. The appellants filed appeal in this Court to expunge these statements. Dismissing the appeal, HELD: In State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 363, this court has observed that the matters which have ro be kept in view in considering whether the remarks made in judgments against authorities \\'hose conduct comes into consideration before the courts of law in cases to be decided by them are disparaging are : (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or bas any opportunity of ex· plaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is e\idence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and'(c) whether it is neces- sary for the decision of the case. as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronounce- ments must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. [420 DJ On the facts of the case and the eviden~ on record, none of the remarks to which exception has been taken could be described as un- warranted, unnecessary or irrelevant or can he characterised as generali- sation or of a sweeping nature. The appellants had opportunity of filing their affidavits to give their own version, which, they have done in great detail, showing that they knew what the allegations against them wrre. If they wanted to produce any other person in support of their stand that the accused was only. arwstcd on the 10th and not on the 5th or that the injuries found on the accused were old and were not fresh, they could hove clone so. In a habeas corpus petition where allegations are made that a citizen of this country is in illegal custody, it is the duty of the Cou)"l to safeguard the freedom of the citizen which has been guaranteed to him bv the Constitution and to immediately take such action as would ensure that no person, however high or low, acts in contravention of the law or in a high handed arbitrary or illegal manner. While no doubt it i~ the duty of the Court to safeguard against any encroachment on the life and liberty of individuals, at the same time, it has to be recognised that the authoritiea who have the. responsibility to discharge their functions vested in them u~der th7 l~w of the country should not be impeded or interfered with without 1ustific:itiory. In fur:therance of this duty the High Court passed the orders which m the circumstances of the case was fully justified ~19m · · 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION no. 35 of 1969. (1972] 2 S.C.R. Criminal Appeal Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 20, 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High <::ourt in Criminal Criginal No. 50-M of 1968. R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. Jag:u1mohan Reddy, J •. This appeal is for expunging certain remarks made against Appellants in the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court on a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by one Hans /Raj Midha for the production of his son Prem Prakash Midha who is said to have been d~ained illegally by the Central Investigation Agency (CJ.A.) Staff Kamal. In an investigation of an offence of theft committed on 1-4-68 of a Cash Box contaihing Rs. 10667187 from the Head Post Office, Kamal where the said Prem Prakash Midha was working as a Clerk Incharge in the Savings Bank Section. It appears from the Habeas Corpus Petition presented to the High Court on 10-5-68 that after !;'rem Prakash who was working in the Bank, had gone out to meet his wife and came back he found the cash box missing. Immediately he reported the loss to the Assistant Post Master. It also appears from the affidavit filed on the return made by the appellant Jage Ram that a report of the theft of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.