LexV.L. ROHLUA versus DY. COMMR. AIJAL, DISTT. MLZO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
V.L.ROHLUA v. DY. COMMR. AIJAL, DISlT. MlZO September 29, 1970 i03 B [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J, M. SHELAT, G. K. MITTER, c D l!l F G H C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J The Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958, ss. 4 and 5-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s. 344-Mi;;o hostile arrested by armed forces under s. 4 of 1958 Act-Handed over to ci1·i1 authorities after two months-Whether this was done lVith the least pos .. sible delay within meaning.of s. 5-Remc.nd orders by Magistrate exceed- ing I 5 days-Code of Criminal Procedure no~ applicable to area-Spirit of Code only applies-Re1na11d orders exceeding 15· days l\:hen not un~ conscionably long do not vitiate detention. The petitionj'r wa> a resident of Mizo District. He was arrested by the Armed Folrces under s .. 4(c) of the Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958. He was handed over to the Civil Authorities on March 2, 1968, i.e., about two months after his arrest. Thereafter two criminal cases covering a wide range of offences under the Assam Maintenance. of Public Order Act, the Arms Act and several sections of the Indian Penal Code were started against him. He was remanded to Judicial custody from time to time the period of remand being on each occasion more than 15 days. He filed a p~tition for a writ of /1abtas corpus in the High Court and on its dismissal he .filed a writ petition in this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The questions that fell for consideration were : (i) whether his detention was illegal on the ground !hat the armed forces had not handed him over to the civil ,,uthorities with the 'least possible delay' as required by s. 5 of the 1958 Act; (ii) whether the dotention of the petitioner could be held to be illegal because (a) tl.e remand orders were for more than 15 days and (b) there was a break in the remand orders while the petition under Art. 3~ was J'!'Dding in this Court . . HELD: (i) Under s. 5 of the Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special.Powers Act the person arrested has to be made over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay. to- gether with the circumstances occasioning the airest. What is the least possible delay in a case depends upon the facts, that is to say, how. where and in what circumstances the arrest was affected. In the present case the petitioner was, according to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, connected with the Mizo hostiles who were waging \\'ar against India.. It was, therefore, necessary to question him about his associates his stores of arms, and like matters. The difficulty of the terrain, the prese~ce. of hostile el~ments in the area must be considered in ihis connection. Although the Armed Forces surrendered the petitione'r lo the Civil authorities after •ome delay, which was not intended by the law, !here was not too much delay. [506 A-DJ (ii) The Criminal Proc~du.re <:ode is not _applica~le by reas9n of :he sixth Schedule to the Constitution, in the area m question. Only the >p1r1t of the Cri!"inal Procedure~de applies. !h~refore strict COJ!lP}iance "tth the provisions of Art, 34 could not be mS1sted on. [506 E-F] S/tlte of Nagalarrd v. tti>n Singh, iiJ966] 3 S.C.R. 830, referred to. 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 2 S.C.R. The period of remand in the present case was each time mdre than 15 days but not so unconscionably fang as to violate the spirit of the Code. There was a gap when the petitioner was in the custody of this court but no request was made for his release then. He was remanded to the custody of tlte Magistrate by this Court and thereafter his deten- tion could not be held to be illegal. [406 G] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 238 of 1970. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Hardev Singh, for the appellant. Naunit Lal, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C. J. The petitioner Rohlua has applied for his release by the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus. Previously he had applied to the High Court of Assam & Nagaland (Misc. Criminal Case No. 506 of 1969) but his petition was dismissed. The facts are as follows : The petitioner is admittedly an inhabitant of Bakupi in the Mizo District. He was arrested by the Armed Forces under s. 4(c) of the Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Powe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.