LexTHE STATE OF PUNJAB versus AJAIB SINGH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] 1952 exclude nephews or they take jointly, and whether succession is per stirpes or per capita, was the subi"ect Ganeshi Lal v. of disagreement at the Bar before us. This question Joti Pershad. must therefore be left over for determination by the trial court, and the case will have to go back to that Ghan~rasekhara court for effecting partition and deli very of posses- ,i.yar J. sion according to the shares to which the plaintiffs may be found entitled. · 1953 Nov.10 .. Subject to what is contained in the foregoing para- graph, the appeal will stand dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. Agent for the appellant: Nehal Chand Jain. Agent for the respondent: B. P. Maheshwari. THE S'rA'l'E OF PUNJAB v. AJAIB SINGH AND ANOTHER (PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MUKHERJEA, DAS, VIVIAN BosE, and GHULAM HASAN.JJ.]. Abducted Persons (Recovery and Restoration) Act (LXV of 1949) ss. 4, 6, 7-Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 15, 19 (1) (d), (e), (g), 21, 22-Law authorising police officers to take abducted persons into custody and deliver such persons to officer in charge of camp- Constitutional vaUdity-"Arrest and detention", meaning of-Sc<>]Je of Art. 22-Construction of statutes. The Abducted Persons (Recovery and Restoration) Act (Act LXV of 1949) does not infringe art. 14, art. 15, art. 19 (1) (d), (e) and (g), art. 21 or art. 22 of the Constitution and is not unconsti- tutional on the ground that it contravenes a,ny of these provisions. The physical restraint put upon an abducted person in the process of recovering and ta.king that person into custody without any allegation or accusation of any actual or suspected or appre· bended commission by that person of any offence of a criminal or quasi.criminal nature or of any act prejudicial to the State or the public interest, and delivery of that person to the custody of the officer in charge of the nearest camp under s. 4 of the Abducted Persons (Recovery and Restoration) Act (LXV of 1949) is not arrest and detention within the meaning of art. 22 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. The said Act does not therefore infringe the fundamental right guaranteed by art. 22 of the Constitution. I ~ ·~ I • .. s.c.n. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 255 The fundamental right conferred by art. 22 gives protection against such arrests as are effected otherwise than under a warrant issued by a Court on the allegation or accusation th11.t the arrested person has, or is suspected to have, committed,.or is about or likely to commit, an act of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature or some activity prejudicial to the public or the State interest. There is indication in the language of art. 22 (1) and (2) that it was designed to give protection against the act of the exe- cutive or other non-judicial authority. The Blitz Case (Petition No. 75 of 1952) explained. Muslim abducted persons constitute a well-defined class for the purpose of legislation and the fact that the Act is extended only to the several States mentioned in s. 1 (2) of the Act does not make any difference, for a classification may well be made on a geographical basis. The Act does not therefore contravene art. 14 of the Constitution. If the language of an article is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, then the duty of the Court is to adopt · that i;neaning irrespective of the inconvenience that such a con- struction may produce. If, however, two constructions are pos- sible then the Court must adopt that which will ensure smooth and harmonious working of the Constitution and eschew the other which will lead to absurdity or give rise to practical inconvenience or make well established provisions of existing law nugatory. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Ap- peal No. 82of 1952. Appeal under art. 132 (1) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated June 10, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla (Bhandari and Khosla JJ.) in Criminal Writ No. 144 of 1951. M. 0. Setalvad (Attorney-General for India) and 0. K. Daphtary (Solicitor-General for India) (R. Gana- pathy, with them) for the appellant. J.B. Dadachanji (amicus curi~) for respondent No. 1. 1952. November 1 O. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS J.-This appeal arises out of a habeas corpus. petition filed by one Ajaib Singh in the High Court 1 of Punjab for the production and release of one Musammat Sar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.