{ "metadata": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioners asserted that the accused were illegally detained from the time of apprehension and not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours, violating constitutional safeguards. They also argued that the TSPDFE Act required the first remand before a special Court. The respondents maintained that the detention clock runs from the moment of formal arrest and that presenting the accused before the nearest Judicial Magistrate satisfied Cr.P.C. provisions. They further contended that the TSPDFE Act\u2019s use of \u0027may\u0027 in Section 13(1) is discretionary, thus preserving standard criminal procedure for initial remand.", "bench": [ "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy", "The Hon\u0027ble Mr. Justice N. Tukaramji" ], "case_number": [ "WP No.21912 of 2024" ], "cases_referred": [ "Ashak Hussain Allah Detha @ Siddique and Another vs The Assistant Collector of Customs (P) Bombay and Another [1990 SCC OnLineBom 3]", "R. v. Lemsatef [1977 (2) All E.R. 835]", "Mrs. Iqbal Kaur Kwatra vs The Dist. General of Police, Rajasthan State, Jaipur [1996 (1) A.P.L.J. 370 (HC)]", "State vs Ram Autar Chaudhry [AIR 1955 Allahabad 138]", "Nabachandra vs Manipur Administration [AIR 1964 Manipur 39]", "Vishal Manohar Mandrekar vs The State of Telangana [Order dated 29.02.2024 in Criminal Revision Case No.228 of 2024]", "Dinesh Chandra Pandey vs High Court of Madhya Pradesh [2010 (11) SCC 500]", "Sarla Goel vs Kishan Chand [2009 (7) SCC 658]", "Mohan Singh vs International Airport Authority of India [1997 (9) SCC 132]" ], "chunkwise_data": { "chunk_1": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioner contends that the authorities illegally detained the four individuals prior to showing their official arrest and thus failed to produce them within 24 hours. The respondents maintain that the arrest procedures were proper, explaining the time taken to locate additional accused and complete formalities before presenting them to the Magistrate.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "26.09.2024", "facts": "This is the second Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, seeking a Habeas Corpus order for the production of four individuals alleged to have been apprehended before any formal arrest was shown. An earlier Writ Petition (W.P. No.21034 of 2024) was disposed of on 02.08.2024 after the authorities stated that the detainees were officially arrested and remanded. Having obtained further documents, the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the manner and timing of the arrest, claiming that the detainees should have been produced earlier and before the appropriate court.", "final_status": "Not specified in the text", "formatted_summary": "In this second Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the arrest and detention of four individuals and seeks their production under a Habeas Corpus plea. The first Writ Petition on similar grounds was disposed of after the respondents stated that the detainees had been lawfully arrested and remanded. The petitioner now questions the timing and procedure of the arrest, focusing on whether the initial apprehension period constituted unlawful detention and whether the proper court for remand under the TSPDFE Act was followed. The outcome of this petition is not detailed in the provided text.", "held": "Not specified in the text", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "1) Whether the period of alleged apprehension before formally showing the arrest must be counted toward the 24-hour production requirement before the Magistrate. 2) Whether an accused under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996, must be produced only before the notified Special Court or if a nearest Judicial Magistrate can remand the accused.", "prayer": "The present is a second writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus by the same petitioner, and by way of the present writ petition the petitioner herein seeks for production of the four detenus viz., Thallapally Srinivas Goud, Thallapally Sai Sharath, Thallapally Sai Rohith and Palavalasa Siva Saran.", "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Indian Penal Code, 1860": "3. The aforesaid four detenus are said to be accused and arrested for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short \u2018IPC\u2019) and Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act. The petitioner on an earlier occasion had filed another writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus i.e. Writ Petition No.21034 of 2024. When the said writ petition was filed, the grounds raised in the present writ petition were not available and it was filed at the stage of their apprehension itself and subsequently when the matter came up for hearing, the said writ petition was disposed of in the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Counsel as regards the official arrest of the four detenus being made and they being sent on judicial remand vide order dated 02.08.2024. The said writ petition was rejected on the very same day i.e. on 02.08.2024 itself. That subsequently after obtaining necessary documents and records, the present writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed raising two substantial questions of law which have been framed in the beginning of this order.", "Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996": "2. The present is a second writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus by the same petitioner, and by way of the present writ petition the petitioner herein seeks for production of the four detenus viz., Thallapally Srinivas Goud, Thallapally Sai Sharath, Thallapally Sai Rohith and Palavalasa Siva Saran. This writ petition has been filed substantially on two questions of law, which are: - a) Whether the period of apprehension by the police authorities before the official arrest being shown is also to be considered for the purpose of fulfilling the requirement of producing the so-called apprehended person before the Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours? b) Whether an accused under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996 (for short \u2018TSPDFE Act\u2019) can be produced for the first remand before the nearest Judicial Magistrate or he needs to be presented only before the concerned notified Special Court?" } }, "chunk_2": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioner maintains that the clock for the mandatory 24-hour production requirement begins from the initial apprehension, rendering the detention unlawful. The opposing side appears to rely on the recorded time of formal arrest, arguing that the accused were brought before the Magistrate within the permissible timeframe.", "cases_referred": [ "Ashak Hussain Allah Detha @ Siddique and Another vs The Assistant Collector of Customs (P) Bombay and Another [1990 SCC OnLineBom 3]", "R. v. Lemsatef [1977 2 All E.R. 835]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "A writ of Habeas Corpus was filed alleging that certain accused individuals were taken into police custody on 31.07.2024 and 01.08.2024, but were officially shown as arrested later, thereby exceeding the 24-hour timeframe mandated for producing them before a Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner contends that the statutory clock begins at the moment of apprehension, and that the authorities failed to bring the accused before the Magistrate within this period. These proceedings focus on whether the detention was lawful and in compliance with mandated procedures.", "final_status": "Not specified in this section", "formatted_summary": "This section addresses a habeas corpus petition claiming that the police apprehended the accused at specific times and delayed formally recording their arrest, resulting in custody that may have exceeded the 24-hour legal limit before they were produced before a Judicial Magistrate. The text reproduces relevant Code of Criminal Procedure provisions and cites a Bombay High Court judgment emphasizing that the moment of actual restraint constitutes an arrest. No final determination of the dispute is included in this excerpt.", "held": "No final decision is indicated in the provided text", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the accused were unlawfully detained beyond the 24-hour limit before being produced before the Judicial Magistrate, and when the legally relevant time of arrest should commence.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "N.D.P.S. Act": "11. The argument that the applicants were not arrested at the mid night of 19th July 1989 but were detained for interrogation is untenable. Since the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act are cognizable [ R.V. Lemsatef (1977) 2 All E.R. 835. \u201cIf the idea is getting around amongst either customs and excise officers or police officers that they can arrest or detain people, as the case may be, for this particular purpose, the sooner they disabuse themselves of that idea the better\u201d.], the Investigating Officers possess the authority to arrest without warrant. They arrest a suspect or do not arrest at all. The \u201cdetention in custody for interrogation\u201d is unknown to law. Interrogation is known. A person may be lawfully interrogated. But during such interrogation he is a freeman. If he is detained, not allowed to leave the office of the Respondent No. 1 and compelled to eat and sleep there, he is under detention. This restraint is in reality an arrest. In this case, the applicants were not allowed to leave the office of the Respondent No. 1 after the midnight of 19th July 1989. In the circumstances of this case, the applicants were arrested at the midnight of 19th July 1989.", "Section 167(1) of Cr.P.C": "167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. \u2013(1)Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer-in-charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.\u201d", "Section 57 of Cr.P.C": "6. While dealing with the first question, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the provisions of Section 57 of Cr.P.C and Sub-Section (1) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C, which for ready reference are reproduced herein under: \u201c57. Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours. \u2013No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate\u0027s Court.\u201d" } }, "chunk_3": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The applicants argue that they were never legally arrested and were instead kept in custody against their will. The officers assert that they possessed the authority to conduct arrests without a warrant under the NDPS Act and claim the detention was justified. The debate centers on whether a suspect must be formally arrested or may lawfully be held for interrogation, and how long such custody can last.", "cases_referred": [ "R. v. Lemsatef [1977 (2) All E.R. 835]", "Mrs. Iqbal Kaur Kwatra vs The Dist. General of Police, Rajasthan State, Jaipur [1996 (1) A.P.L.J. 370 (HC)]", "State vs Ram Autar Chaudhry [AIR 1955 Allahabad 138]", "Nabachandra vs Manipur Administration [AIR 1964 Manipur 39]", "Vishal Manohar Mandrekar vs The State of Telangana [Order dated 29.02.2024 in Criminal Revision Case No.228 of 2024]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The provided text discusses events surrounding the applicants\u0027 apprehension late at night on 19 July 1989. They contend they were not formally arrested but were instead detained for interrogation related to suspected offences under the NDPS Act. The investigating authorities maintained they had authority to hold the applicants without a warrant, resulting in a dispute over whether the applicants were lawfully taken into custody. The matter came before the court to assess whether their continued stay in the office of the investigative agency amounted to an unlawful detention, particularly given the requirement to produce arrested persons before a magistrate within a specified timeframe.", "final_status": "No final status indicated in the provided text.", "formatted_summary": "This excerpt addresses the alleged unlawful detention of applicants suspected of an NDPS Act offence, focusing on whether a formal arrest is required once someone is taken into custody. Various High Court decisions and English precedents are cited to illustrate that police cannot hold individuals solely for interrogation, and must either arrest suspects for an offence or release them. Furthermore, once arrested, the 24-hour rule applies, requiring prompt production before a magistrate. The discussion emphasizes that any liberty restraint without an offence-based arrest amounts to illegal detention.", "held": "The excerpt emphasizes that detaining someone under the guise of interrogation, without formal arrest or prompt production before a magistrate, is not permitted. Any prolonged restraint on personal liberty beyond an actual offence-based arrest is unlawful.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether suspects can be lawfully detained for interrogation without formal arrest and how the 24-hour rule for judicial production applies.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898": "22. In the case of State v. Ram Autar Chaudhry (6) A IR 1955 Allahabad 138, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that Sec. 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, equivalent to Sec. 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not empower a police officer to keep an arrested person in custody a minute longer than is necessary for the purpose of investigation and it does not give him an absolute right to keep a person in custody till twenty-four hours. It has further held that a police officer is not justified in detaining a person for one single hour except upon some reasonable ground justified by the circumstances of the case and under no circumstances can the period of such detention exceed twenty-four hours, without, a special order of a Magistrate. In this case, the inability of admission in jail was not found a justifying reason for delay. This case has been referred to in the case of Nabachandra v. Manipur Administration (7) AIR 1964 Manipur 39. A learned Single Judge of the Manipur High Court has observed that: \u0027The Criminal Procedure Code does not authorise detention by the police for 24 hours after the arrest. Secs. 60 and 61, Cr. P.C., makes this quite dear, Section 60 provides that a police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate. Section 61 repeats this by saying that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under Sec. 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate\u0027s Court. Thus, the twenty-four hours prescribed under Sec. 61 is the outermost limit beyond which a person cannot be detained in police custody. It is certainly not an authorisation for the police to detain him for twenty four hours in their custody. It is only in a case where a police officer considers that the investigation can be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 61 that such detention for twenty-four hours is permitted. This is clear from Sec. 167(1) Crl. P.C. Thus, when the Police Officer knew in this case that he cannot complete the investigation within twenty-four hours, the detention of the petitioner in custody in the Imphal Police Station which is just opposite the Court where the Magistrate sits was totally illegal.\u0027 Thus it is held that on a construction of Sections 60, 61 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old), equivalent to Sections 56, 57 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (new) that unless a police officer considers that he can complete the investigation within a period of twenty-four hours, it is his duty to produce the accused forthwith before a Magistrate.", "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973": "21. On a reading of Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is evident that no police officer can detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a period longer than twenty-four hours besides the time taken for journey.", "Constitution of India, Article 22(2)": "10. Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India mandates that every person who is arrested and detained in police custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of the arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.", "N.D.P.S. Act": "11. The argument that the applicants were not arrested at the mid night of 19th July 1989 but were detained for interrogation is untenable. Since the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act are cognizable [ R.V. Lemsatef (1977) 2 All E.R. 835.\u0027If the idea is getting around amongst either customs and excise officers or police officers that they can arrest or detain people, as the case may be, for this particular purpose, the sooner they disabuse themselves of that idea the better\u0027.] , the Investigating Officers possess the authority to arrest without warrant. They arrest a suspect or do not arrest at all. The \u0027detention in custody for interrogation\u0027 is unknown to law. Interrogation is known. A person may be lawfully interrogated. But during such interrogation he is a freeman. If he is detained, not allowed to leave the office of the Respondent No. 1 and compelled to eat and sleep there, he is under detention. This restraint is in reality an arrest. In this case, the applicants were not allowed to leave the office of the Respondent No. 1 after the midnight of 19th July 1989. In the circumstances of this case, the applicants were arrested at the midnight of 19th July 1989.", "Penal Code, 1860": "23. Thus it is seen that a police officer cannot detain any person in custody without arresting him and any such detention will amount to a wrongful confinement within the meaning of Sec. 340 of the Penal Code, 1860. Actual arrest and detention do not appear to be necessary, A person in custody cannot be detained without producing him before a Magistrate under the colourable pretension that no actual arrest is made and the burden of proving the reasonable ground is on the arrester that the time occupied in the journey was reasonable with reference to the distance traversed as also other circumstances and in case of continuation of detention for twenty four hours, particularly, when the police officer has reason to believe that the investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours, he must produce the accused forthwith before the magistrate and cannot wait for twenty-four hours." } }, "chunk_4": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioner maintains that custody begins immediately upon apprehension, rendering the detention of Accused Nos.3 and 4 illegal because they were produced after 24 hours. The petitioner also argues that the Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction under the TSPDFE Act, which requires a special Court to handle remand proceedings. The respondent authorities appear to rely on the formal time of arrest and the nearest available Magistrate to justify the process taken.", "cases_referred": [ "Vishal Manohar Mandrekar vs The State of Telangana [Order dated 29.02.2024 in Criminal Revision Case No.228 of 2024]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "Accused Nos.3 and 4 were allegedly kept in police custody for 38 hours before being taken to a Magistrate, whereas Accused Nos.1, 2, and 6 were produced within 24 hours. The dispute centers on whether the authorities violated the 24-hour rule for producing arrestees and whether remand should have been sought before a special Court designated under the TSPDFE Act. The petitioner challenged the propriety of the detention and the jurisdiction of the regular Judicial Magistrate, contending that the proper forum was a special Court notified under the TSPDFE Act.", "final_status": "pending", "formatted_summary": "This portion of the document discusses the circumstances under which certain accused individuals were taken into police custody and then produced before the Judicial Magistrate, focusing on whether the 24-hour requirement under Section 57 of Cr.P.C. began at the official moment of arrest or at first apprehension. The Court notes that Accused Nos.3 and 4 were presented after 38 hours, which exceeded the permissible limit and thus was deemed unlawful. The text further examines the jurisdictional issue under the TSPDFE Act, which mandates that proceedings be conducted before a designated special Court rather than a regular Judicial Magistrate.", "held": "The Court found that the detention of Accused Nos.3 and 4 exceeded the 24-hour limit when considering the time of their actual apprehension, thus violating Section 57 of Cr.P.C. The Court concluded that the calculation of the 24 hours must begin at the point of apprehension, not the official time of arrest. It also indicated that proper jurisdiction should lie with the special Court designated under the TSPDFE Act for future remand proceedings.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "1) Whether the 24-hour period for production before the Magistrate commences at the moment of actual apprehension or the time of officially recorded arrest. 2) Whether the Judicial Magistrate\u0027s first remand order was valid when the TSPDFE Act specifies that only a special Court has jurisdiction over such matters.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India [Paragraph from quoted text]": "\u201c10. Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India mandates that every person who is arrested and detained in police custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of the arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.\u201d", "Section 167 of Cr.P.C. [Paragraph 11 from quoted text]": "11. Section 57 of Cr.P.C. was incorporated in accordance with the above Article. It mandates that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case was reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of Magistrate under Section 167 Cr.P.C., exceed24 hours excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate Court.", "Section 57 of Cr.P.C. [Paragraph 10 from main text]": "10. In the given factual backdrop and the judicial precedents referred to in the preceding paragraphs, what is evident and an admitted fact is that accused Nos.3 and 4 remained in police custody for a period of 38 hours before they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 57 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 though remained in police custody, but were produced within 24 hours before the Judicial Magistrate.", "Section 57 of Cr.P.C. [Paragraph 11 from quoted text]": "11. Section 57 of Cr.P.C. was incorporated in accordance with the above Article. It mandates that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case was reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of Magistrate under Section 167 Cr.P.C., exceed24 hours excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate Court.", "Section 57 of Cr.P.C. [Paragraph 12 from main text]": "12. Accordingly, this Bench has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that question No.1 as regards the commencement of the period of apprehension is concerned, it is held that the period of apprehension is also to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the period of 24 hours as is envisaged under Section 57 of Cr.P.C. In other words, 24 hours is not to be calculated from the time of the official arrest being shown by the police personnel in the arrest memo, but from the time he was initially apprehended or taken into custody. In view of the same, accused Nos.3 and 4 have been produced before the Judicial Magistrate only after completion of 24 hours from the time they were apprehended. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 were produced before the Judicial Magistrate before completion of 24 hours. Therefore, there is clear violation of the statutory requirement under Section 57 of Cr.P.C so far as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, and they are accordingly liable to be given the benefit for the illegal act which the respondent-authorities have committed.", "TSPDFE Act [Paragraph 13]": "13. We now venture into the second question of law to be considered in the instant case i.e. whether the order of first remand passed by the Judicial Magistrate is proper and legal when in terms of Section 6, 13 and 14 of the TSPDFE Act which mandates the proceedings under the said Act to be exercised only by a special Court duly nominated?", "TSPDFE Act [Paragraph 14]": "14. In the instant case, the reason for the said dispute is that after the detenues were apprehended, and later arrested, they were produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate which in the instant case is Hon \u2019ble XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad and were not produced before the special Court notified and constituted under the TSPDFE Act.", "TSPDFE Act [Paragraph 15]": "15. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 6(1) and 6(2) of the TSPDFE Act, the Government shall by notification constitute a District and Sessions Court as the special Court to deal with matters under the TSPDFE Act. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 6(2) of the TSPDFE Act, no Court other than the special Court notified to hear TSPDFE Act cases shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which the provisions of this Act applies.", "TSPDFE Act [Paragraph 16]": "16. Referring to the aforesaid provisions of Section 6(1) and 6(2) of the TSPDFE Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the plain reading of Section 6(1) as also of Section 6(2), there is a clear exclusion of jurisdiction of all other Courts to deal with matters under the TSPDFE Act except the Court which has been duly notified under the special Act. Referring to the said provisions, it was further contended that once when there is a notified special Court to deal with matters pertaining to the said Act, the very initiation of proceedings for remand also should had been only before the notified Court and not before any other Court. Therefore, the proceedings of first remand before the Judicial" } }, "chunk_5": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The petitioner insists that Section 6(1) and 6(2) of the TSPDFE Act bars other courts and thus invalidates the first remand before the Judicial Magistrate. The respondents maintain that the TSPDFE Act does not oust the Cr.P.C., enabling a Judicial Magistrate to authorize initial remand before the case is committed to the special Court.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "The petitioner challenges the validity of the initial remand process for individuals detained under the TSPDFE Act, arguing that they should have been produced before the notified special Court rather than a Judicial Magistrate. The respondents contend that the Cr.P.C. still governs the procedure for the first remand. The matter is now before the Court in a writ petition seeking to determine whether the TSPDFE Act excludes the ordinary Magistrate\u2019s jurisdiction for initial remand proceedings.", "final_status": "No final status provided in this excerpt.", "formatted_summary": "In this section, the petitioner argues that the TSPDFE Act excludes any Court other than the one specifically notified under the Act from exercising jurisdiction, including at the stage of first remand. The respondents counter that the Act does not displace the procedures of the Cr.P.C., allowing a Judicial Magistrate to lawfully remand the detainees. The passage focuses on the interplay between the TSPDFE Act and general criminal procedure, without providing a final ruling.", "held": "No conclusive holding or final decision is stated in the provided text.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the TSPDFE Act completely excludes the jurisdiction of other courts for the first remand and whether the Cr.P.C. provisions still apply in such cases.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Cr.P.C": "17. Learned Special Government Pleader opposing the second question of law contended that the presentation of the detenues before the Judicial Magistrate was strictly in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. The applicability of Cr.P.C has not been ousted under the TSPDFE Act, rather the special Act also prescribes that so far as the procedures are concerned, it would be the procedure of the Cr.P.C which would be applicable for the special Court while trying the matter under the said Act. Learned Special Government Pleader referred to Section 13(1) of the TSPDFE Act and contended that the framers of law had deliberately used the term \u2018may\u2019 in the said Sub-Section and therefore it has to be read in a harmonious way enabling the provisions of Cr.P.C as also the provisions of TSPDFE Act to be in sink while being in operation. It cannot be said that the provisions of TSPDFE Act totally ousts the applicability of Cr.P.C right from the inception stage itself.", "TSPDFE Act": "15. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 6(1) and 6(2) of the TSPDFE Act, the Government shall by notification constitute a District and Sessions Court as the special Court to deal with matters under the TSPDFE Act. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 6(2) of the TSPDFE Act, no Court other than the special Court notified to hear TSPDFE Act cases shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which the provisions of this Act applies." } }, "chunk_6": { "analysis_of_arguments": "The court considers arguments asserting that the TSPDFE Act does not displace the Cr.P.C. requirement of producing an arrested person before the nearest Judicial Magistrate. Discussion focuses on the legislative intent behind the term \u0027may\u0027 and its effect on fundamental rights under Article 22(2) of the Constitution.", "cases_referred": [ "Dinesh Chandra Pandey vs High Court of Madhya Pradesh [2010 (11) SCC 500]", "Sarla Goel vs Kishan Chand [2009 (7) SCC 658]", "Mohan Singh vs International Airport Authority of India [1997 (9) SCC 132]" ], "delivered_date": null, "facts": "This excerpt primarily contains legal discussion about the interplay between the TSPDFE Act and Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. No factual narrative regarding the underlying dispute or procedural steps leading to this stage is provided.", "final_status": "Not specified in the excerpt", "formatted_summary": "This portion of the judgment addresses the scope of the TSPDFE Act in relation to Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. The court finds that the TSPDFE Act does not exclude the Cr.P.C.\u2019s mandate to produce an arrested person before the nearest Judicial Magistrate. Relying on precedents, the court interprets \u2018may\u2019 in Section 13(1) of the TSPDFE Act as discretionary rather than mandatory, ensuring the continued force of Cr.P.C. procedures and the constitutional requirement under Article 22(2).", "held": "It was held that the TSPDFE Act does not override the requirement of producing an accused before the nearest Judicial Magistrate, and the use of \u0027may\u0027 in Section 13(1) remains discretionary rather than mandatory, maintaining the applicability of the Cr.P.C.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "Whether the TSPDFE Act ousts or modifies the procedure under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., and whether the term \u0027may\u0027 in Section 13(1) of the TSPDFE Act is mandatory or directory.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Constitution of India": "\u201cWhat is also required to be noted, at this juncture, is that even Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India envisages that every person who is arrested and detained in custody \u2018shall be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate\u2019 within 24 hours of such arrest and detention with exceptions carved out, those which are not applicable in the present case. Same is the provision that is reflected in Section 167 of Cr.P.C. as well and if we further read the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 167, it also provides for the power upon the Judicial Magistrate to even entertain those applications / cases of accused persons produced before him\u2026\u201d", "Cr.P.C.": "\u201cA plain reading of the said Sub-Section clearly indicates the power which is conferred upon the Judicial Magistrate under Section 167(2). While framing the said provision of law, it has been very emphatically taken note of by the law makers that the said provision of law needs to be taken care of in the process of subsequent acts being made and also taking note of the ground whether the Judicial Magistrate before whom the apprehended/detained person is being produced has the jurisdiction or not. When we read the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 167 along with Section 13(1) and (2) of the TSPDFE Act, it will clearly give an indication that the TSPDFE Act has not completely ousted the applicability of Cr.P.C. Rather it is a case where the procedure to be adopted by the special Court notified under the said Act also follows the procedure laid down under Cr.P.C.\u201d", "TSPDFE Act": "\u201cReading Section 167 of Cr.P.C along with Section 13 and 14 of TSPDFE Act would clearly force us to reach to the conclusion that the word \u2018may\u2019 used in Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 is a discretionary power and not a mandatory direction. In cases where the Judicial Magistrate does not have jurisdiction, under the said circumstances also Sub-Section (2) empowers the nearest Judicial Magistrate to consider granting of judicial custody and order the accused to be forwarded before such Court which otherwise has the jurisdiction.\u201d" } }, "chunk_7": { "analysis_of_arguments": "Petitioners argued that the arresting authorities violated fundamental rights by failing to produce accused Nos.3 and 4 promptly, thus contravening the 24-hour rule. Respondents contended that the remand procedures were valid and that the relevant statutory provisions had been appropriately followed.", "cases_referred": [], "delivered_date": "26.09.2024", "facts": "Several individuals (accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, and 6) were apprehended under allegations involving the TSPDFE Act. They contend that they were not produced before a Judicial Magistrate within the mandatory 24-hour period following initial apprehension, resulting in unlawful detention. Consequently, a Habeas Corpus petition was filed, seeking immediate release. The matter reached the High Court after preliminary proceedings, with dispute centering on whether the special enactment overrides procedural safeguards guaranteed by criminal procedure rules and constitutional provisions relating to personal liberty.", "final_status": "Partly allowed", "formatted_summary": "In this portion of the judgment, the Court addresses whether the TSPDFE Act supersedes the procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly the requirement to produce detainees before a Magistrate within 24 hours of apprehension. Concluding that fundamental rights under Article 22(2) remain valid, the Court ordered the release of accused Nos.3 and 4, whose custody extended beyond 24 hours without judicial sanction. The petitions by accused Nos.1, 2, and 6 were dismissed, as they had been taken to the Magistrate in time. The decision affirms that statutory enactments cannot override constitutional protections or the mandatory procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings.", "held": "The Court held that the TSPDFE Act does not override the mandatory requirements under criminal procedure or the constitutional guarantee of being produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours. Accused Nos.3 and 4, who remained in custody beyond this period, were released, while the request for release of the remaining accused was dismissed.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": "The key issues concern whether the TSPDFE Act displaces the mandatory requirement of producing an arrested person before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, the starting point of that 24-hour period, and the Judicial Magistrate\u2019s competence to entertain the matter.", "prayer": null, "reserved_date": null, "statutes": { "Constitution of India": "27. However, as regards the first question of law being decided in favour of the detenues i.e. accused Nos.3 and 4 to the extent of the period of initial apprehension itself being the time from which the period of 24 hours commences within which the detenues had to be produced before the Judicial Magistrate. In view of the chart which is reflected in paragraph No.4 of this order, admittedly accused Nos.3 and 4 seem to have been under police custody for a period of more than 24 hours from the time they were initially apprehended. In the light of the judgment quoted in the case of Ashak Hussain (supra) that of the Bombay High Court and also in the case of Mrs. Iqbal KaurKwatra (supra) from the unified Andhra Pradesh High Court, the respondent -authorities seem to have clearly violated the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution at the first instance and also there is a clear violation of Section 167(1) of Cr.P.C. Thus, the accused Nos.3 and 4 in the instant case are entitled for relief of issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus and they are therefore ordered to be released from the custody forthwith. However, since the accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 have been produced before the Judicial Magistrate before completion of 24 hours; their claim for being released deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.", "Cr.P.C": "27. However, as regards the first question of law being decided in favour of the detenues i.e. accused Nos.3 and 4 to the extent of the period of initial apprehension itself being the time from which the period of 24 hours commences within which the detenues had to be produced before the Judicial Magistrate. In view of the chart which is reflected in paragraph No.4 of this order, admittedly accused Nos.3 and 4 seem to have been under police custody for a period of more than 24 hours from the time they were initially apprehended. In the light of the judgment quoted in the case of Ashak Hussain (supra) that of the Bombay High Court and also in the case of Mrs. Iqbal KaurKwatra (supra) from the unified Andhra Pradesh High Court, the respondent -authorities seem to have clearly violated the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution at the first instance and also there is a clear violation of Section 167(1) of Cr.P.C. Thus, the accused Nos.3 and 4 in the instant case are entitled for relief of issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus and they are therefore ordered to be released from the custody forthwith. However, since the accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 have been produced before the Judicial Magistrate before completion of 24 hours; their claim for being released deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.", "TSPDFE Act": "25. In the light of the aforesaid judicial precedents and upon reading of the two provisions of law, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that TSPDFE Act has not in any manner ousted the applicability of the provisions of Cr.P.C . so far as the mandatory req uirement which includes the fundamental right of any person who stands apprehended or arrested to be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate. If the said interpretation is not accepted or followed; the very purpose, object and intention of the law makers at the first instance so far as the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and secondly under the statute i.e. Section 167(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C . would render the two provisions redundant, which in the opinion o f this Court would give rise to far more complications and repercussions and which perhaps is also not the intention of the law makers in the course of enacting the TSPDFE Act." } } }, "counsels": [ "Mr. Yemmiganur Soma Srinath Reddy (for Petitioner)", "Mr. Swaroop Oorilla (for Respondents)" ], "delivered_date": "26.09.2024", "facts": "Several individuals were allegedly apprehended under the TSPDFE Act and other penal provisions. The petitioner filed a second Writ Petition seeking a Habeas Corpus order, asserting that the authorities unlawfully detained certain accused and failed to produce them before the Magistrate within 24 hours. In one instance, the detainees were reportedly held for 38 hours. The petitioner also contends that the first remand should have been before a special Court notified under the TSPDFE Act rather than a Judicial Magistrate. An earlier writ petition was disposed of upon official arrest statements, and the present challenge focuses on the legality of detention and compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards.", "final_status": "Partly allowed", "first_party": [ "1. Smt. T. Ramadevi, W/o.T. Srinivas Goud" ], "grouped_statutes": { "Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India [Paragraph from quoted text]": [ "\u201c10. Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India mandates that every person who is arrested and detained in police custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of the arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.\u201d" ], "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898": [ "22. In the case of State v. Ram Autar Chaudhry (6) A IR 1955 Allahabad 138, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that Sec. 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, equivalent to Sec. 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not empower a police officer to keep an arrested person in custody a minute longer than is necessary for the purpose of investigation and it does not give him an absolute right to keep a person in custody till twenty-four hours. It has further held that a police officer is not justified in detaining a person for one single hour except upon some reasonable ground justified by the circumstances of the case and under no circumstances can the period of such detention exceed twenty-four hours, without, a special order of a Magistrate. In this case, the inability of admission in jail was not found a justifying reason for delay. This case has been referred to in the case of Nabachandra v. Manipur Administration (7) AIR 1964 Manipur 39. A learned Single Judge of the Manipur High Court has observed that: \u0027The Criminal Procedure Code does not authorise detention by the police for 24 hours after the arrest. Secs. 60 and 61, Cr. P.C., makes this quite dear, Section 60 provides that a police officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate. Section 61 repeats this by saying that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under Sec. 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate\u0027s Court. Thus, the twenty-four hours prescribed under Sec. 61 is the outermost limit beyond which a person cannot be detained in police custody. It is certainly not an authorisation for the police to detain him for twenty four hours in their custody. It is only in a case where a police officer considers that the investigation can be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 61 that such detention for twenty-four hours is permitted. This is clear from Sec. 167(1) Crl. P.C. Thus, when the Police Officer knew in this case that he cannot complete the investigation within twenty-four hours, the detention of the petitioner in custody in the Imphal Police Station which is just opposite the Court where the Magistrate sits was totally illegal.\u0027 Thus it is held that on a construction of Sections 60, 61 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old), equivalent to Sections 56, 57 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (new) that unless a police officer considers that he can complete the investigation within a period of twenty-four hours, it is his duty to produce the accused forthwith before a Magistrate." ], "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973": [ "21. On a reading of Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is evident that no police officer can detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a period longer than twenty-four hours besides the time taken for journey." ], "Constitution of India": [ "\u201cWhat is also required to be noted, at this juncture, is that even Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India envisages that every person who is arrested and detained in custody \u2018shall be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate\u2019 within 24 hours of such arrest and detention with exceptions carved out, those which are not applicable in the present case. Same is the provision that is reflected in Section 167 of Cr.P.C. as well and if we further read the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 167, it also provides for the power upon the Judicial Magistrate to even entertain those applications / cases of accused persons produced before him\u2026\u201d", "27. However, as regards the first question of law being decided in favour of the detenues i.e. accused Nos.3 and 4 to the extent of the period of initial apprehension itself being the time from which the period of 24 hours commences within which the detenues had to be produced before the Judicial Magistrate. In view of the chart which is reflected in paragraph No.4 of this order, admittedly accused Nos.3 and 4 seem to have been under police custody for a period of more than 24 hours from the time they were initially apprehended. In the light of the judgment quoted in the case of Ashak Hussain (supra) that of the Bombay High Court and also in the case of Mrs. Iqbal KaurKwatra (supra) from the unified Andhra Pradesh High Court, the respondent -authorities seem to have clearly violated the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution at the first instance and also there is a clear violation of Section 167(1) of Cr.P.C. Thus, the accused Nos.3 and 4 in the instant case are entitled for relief of issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus and they are therefore ordered to be released from the custody forthwith. However, since the accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 have been produced before the Judicial Magistrate before completion of 24 hours; their claim for being released deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed." ], "Constitution of India, Article 22(2)": [ "10. Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India mandates that every person who is arrested and detained in police custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of the arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate." ], "Cr.P.C": [ "17. Learned Special Government Pleader opposing the second question of law contended that the presentation of the detenues before the Judicial Magistrate was strictly in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. The applicability of Cr.P.C has not been ousted under the TSPDFE Act, rather the special Act also prescribes that so far as the procedures are concerned, it would be the procedure of the Cr.P.C which would be applicable for the special Court while trying the matter under the said Act. Learned Special Government Pleader referred to Section 13(1) of the TSPDFE Act and contended that the framers of law had deliberately used the term \u2018may\u2019 in the said Sub-Section and therefore it has to be read in a harmonious way enabling the provisions of Cr.P.C as also the provisions of TSPDFE Act to be in sink while being in operation. It cannot be said that the provisions of TSPDFE Act totally ousts the applicability of Cr.P.C right from the inception stage itself.", "27. However, as regards the first question of law being decided in favour of the detenues i.e. accused Nos.3 and 4 to the extent of the period of initial apprehension itself being the time from which the period of 24 hours commences within which the detenues had to be produced before the Judicial Magistrate. In view of the chart which is reflected in paragraph No.4 of this order, admittedly accused Nos.3 and 4 seem to have been under police custody for a period of more than 24 hours from the time they were initially apprehended. In the light of the judgment quoted in the case of Ashak Hussain (supra) that of the Bombay High Court and also in the case of Mrs. Iqbal KaurKwatra (supra) from the unified Andhra Pradesh High Court, the respondent -authorities seem to have clearly violated the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution at the first instance and also there is a clear violation of Section 167(1) of Cr.P.C. Thus, the accused Nos.3 and 4 in the instant case are entitled for relief of issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus and they are therefore ordered to be released from the custody forthwith. However, since the accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 have been produced before the Judicial Magistrate before completion of 24 hours; their claim for being released deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed." ], "Cr.P.C.": [ "\u201cA plain reading of the said Sub-Section clearly indicates the power which is conferred upon the Judicial Magistrate under Section 167(2). While framing the said provision of law, it has been very emphatically taken note of by the law makers that the said provision of law needs to be taken care of in the process of subsequent acts being made and also taking note of the ground whether the Judicial Magistrate before whom the apprehended/detained person is being produced has the jurisdiction or not. When we read the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 167 along with Section 13(1) and (2) of the TSPDFE Act, it will clearly give an indication that the TSPDFE Act has not completely ousted the applicability of Cr.P.C. Rather it is a case where the procedure to be adopted by the special Court notified under the said Act also follows the procedure laid down under Cr.P.C.\u201d" ], "Indian Penal Code, 1860": [ "3. The aforesaid four detenus are said to be accused and arrested for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short \u2018IPC\u2019) and Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act. The petitioner on an earlier occasion had filed another writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus i.e. Writ Petition No.21034 of 2024. When the said writ petition was filed, the grounds raised in the present writ petition were not available and it was filed at the stage of their apprehension itself and subsequently when the matter came up for hearing, the said writ petition was disposed of in the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Counsel as regards the official arrest of the four detenus being made and they being sent on judicial remand vide order dated 02.08.2024. The said writ petition was rejected on the very same day i.e. on 02.08.2024 itself. That subsequently after obtaining necessary documents and records, the present writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed raising two substantial questions of law which have been framed in the beginning of this order." ], "N.D.P.S. Act": [ "11. The argument that the applicants were not arrested at the mid night of 19th July 1989 but were detained for interrogation is untenable. Since the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act are cognizable [ R.V. Lemsatef (1977) 2 All E.R. 835. \u201cIf the idea is getting around amongst either customs and excise officers or police officers that they can arrest or detain people, as the case may be, for this particular purpose, the sooner they disabuse themselves of that idea the better\u201d], the Investigating Officers possess the authority to arrest without warrant. They arrest a suspect or do not arrest at all. The \u201cdetention in custody for interrogation\u201d is unknown to law. Interrogation is known. A person may be lawfully interrogated. But during such interrogation he is a freeman. If he is detained, not allowed to leave the office of the Respondent No. 1 and compelled to eat and sleep there, he is under detention. This restraint is in reality an arrest. In this case, the applicants were not allowed to leave the office of the Respondent No. 1 after the midnight of 19th July 1989. In the circumstances of this case, the applicants were arrested at the midnight of 19th July 1989.", "11. The argument that the applicants were not arrested at the mid night of 19th July 1989 but were detained for interrogation is untenable. Since the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act are cognizable [ R.V. Lemsatef (1977) 2 All E.R. 835.\u0027If the idea is getting around amongst either customs and excise officers or police officers that they can arrest or detain people, as the case may be, for this particular purpose, the sooner they disabuse themselves of that idea the better\u0027.] , the Investigating Officers possess the authority to arrest without warrant. They arrest a suspect or do not arrest at all. The \u0027detention in custody for interrogation\u0027 is unknown to law. Interrogation is known. A person may be lawfully interrogated. But during such interrogation he is a freeman. If he is detained, not allowed to leave the office of the Respondent No. 1 and compelled to eat and sleep there, he is under detention. This restraint is in reality an arrest. In this case, the applicants were not allowed to leave the office of the Respondent No. 1 after the midnight of 19th July 1989. In the circumstances of this case, the applicants were arrested at the midnight of 19th July 1989." ], "Penal Code, 1860": [ "23. Thus it is seen that a police officer cannot detain any person in custody without arresting him and any such detention will amount to a wrongful confinement within the meaning of Sec. 340 of the Penal Code, 1860. Actual arrest and detention do not appear to be necessary, A person in custody cannot be detained without producing him before a Magistrate under the colourable pretension that no actual arrest is made and the burden of proving the reasonable ground is on the arrester that the time occupied in the journey was reasonable with reference to the distance traversed as also other circumstances and in case of continuation of detention for twenty four hours, particularly, when the police officer has reason to believe that the investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours, he must produce the accused forthwith before the magistrate and cannot wait for twenty-four hours." ], "Section 167 of Cr.P.C. [Paragraph 11 from quoted text]": [ "11. Section 57 of Cr.P.C. was incorporated in accordance with the above Article. It mandates that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case was reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of Magistrate under Section 167 Cr.P.C., exceed24 hours excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate Court." ], "Section 167(1) of Cr.P.C": [ "167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. \u2013(1)Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer-in-charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate." ], "Section 57 of Cr.P.C": [ "6. While dealing with the first question, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the provisions of Section 57 of Cr.P.C and Sub-Section (1) of Section 167 of Cr.P.C, which for ready reference are reproduced herein under: \u201c57. Person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours. \u2013No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate\u0027s Court.\u201d" ], "Section 57 of Cr.P.C. [Paragraph 10 from main text]": [ "10. In the given factual backdrop and the judicial precedents referred to in the preceding paragraphs, what is evident and an admitted fact is that accused Nos.3 and 4 remained in police custody for a period of 38 hours before they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 57 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 though remained in police custody, but were produced within 24 hours before the Judicial Magistrate." ], "Section 57 of Cr.P.C. [Paragraph 11 from quoted text]": [ "11. Section 57 of Cr.P.C. was incorporated in accordance with the above Article. It mandates that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case was reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of Magistrate under Section 167 Cr.P.C., exceed24 hours excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate Court." ], "Section 57 of Cr.P.C. [Paragraph 12 from main text]": [ "12. Accordingly, this Bench has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that question No.1 as regards the commencement of the period of apprehension is concerned, it is held that the period of apprehension is also to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the period of 24 hours as is envisaged under Section 57 of Cr.P.C. In other words, 24 hours is not to be calculated from the time of the official arrest being shown by the police personnel in the arrest memo, but from the time he was initially apprehended or taken into custody. In view of the same, accused Nos.3 and 4 have been produced before the Judicial Magistrate only after completion of 24 hours from the time they were apprehended. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 were produced before the Judicial Magistrate before completion of 24 hours. Therefore, there is clear violation of the statutory requirement under Section 57 of Cr.P.C so far as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, and they are accordingly liable to be given the benefit for the illegal act which the respondent-authorities have committed." ], "TSPDFE Act": [ "15. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 6(1) and 6(2) of the TSPDFE Act, the Government shall by notification constitute a District and Sessions Court as the special Court to deal with matters under the TSPDFE Act. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 6(2) of the TSPDFE Act, no Court other than the special Court notified to hear TSPDFE Act cases shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which the provisions of this Act applies.", "\u201cReading Section 167 of Cr.P.C along with Section 13 and 14 of TSPDFE Act would clearly force us to reach to the conclusion that the word \u2018may\u2019 used in Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 is a discretionary power and not a mandatory direction. In cases where the Judicial Magistrate does not have jurisdiction, under the said circumstances also Sub-Section (2) empowers the nearest Judicial Magistrate to consider granting of judicial custody and order the accused to be forwarded before such Court which otherwise has the jurisdiction.\u201d", "25. In the light of the aforesaid judicial precedents and upon reading of the two provisions of law, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that TSPDFE Act has not in any manner ousted the applicability of the provisions of Cr.P.C . so far as the mandatory requirement which includes the fundamental right of any person who stands apprehended or arrested to be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate. If the said interpretation is not accepted or followed; the very purpose, object and intention of the law makers at the first instance so far as the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and secondly under the statute i.e. Section 167(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C . would render the two provisions redundant, which in the opinion o f this Court would give rise to far more complications and repercussions and which perhaps is also not the intention of the law makers in the course of enacting the TSPDFE Act." ], "TSPDFE Act [Paragraph 13]": [ "13. We now venture into the second question of law to be considered in the instant case i.e. whether the order of first remand passed by the Judicial Magistrate is proper and legal when in terms of Section 6, 13 and 14 of the TSPDFE Act which mandates the proceedings under the said Act to be exercised only by a special Court duly nominated?" ], "TSPDFE Act [Paragraph 14]": [ "14. In the instant case, the reason for the said dispute is that after the detenues were apprehended, and later arrested, they were produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate which in the instant case is Hon \u2019ble XII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad and were not produced before the special Court notified and constituted under the TSPDFE Act." ], "TSPDFE Act [Paragraph 15]": [ "15. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 6(1) and 6(2) of the TSPDFE Act, the Government shall by notification constitute a District and Sessions Court as the special Court to deal with matters under the TSPDFE Act. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 6(2) of the TSPDFE Act, no Court other than the special Court notified to hear TSPDFE Act cases shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which the provisions of this Act applies." ], "Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996": [ "2. The present is a second writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus by the same petitioner, and by way of the present writ petition the petitioner herein seeks for production of the four detenus viz., Thallapally Srinivas Goud, Thallapally Sai Sharath, Thallapally Sai Rohith and Palavalasa Siva Saran. This writ petition has been filed substantially on two questions of law, which are: - a) Whether the period of apprehension by the police authorities before the official arrest being shown is also to be considered for the purpose of fulfilling the requirement of producing the so-called apprehended person before the Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours? b) Whether an accused under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996 (for short \u2018TSPDFE Act\u2019) can be produced for the first remand before the nearest Judicial Magistrate or he needs to be presented only before the concerned notified Special Court?" ] }, "held": "The Court concluded that the TSPDFE Act does not displace the constitutional and statutory mandate to produce detainees before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, counting from the time of initial apprehension. Accused Nos.3 and 4, held beyond this limit, were released, whereas the others, produced in time, remained in custody.", "latin_principles": {}, "legal_issues": [ "Whether the 24-hour rule for producing an accused commences upon initial apprehension or formal arrest", "Whether suspects can be held for interrogation without formal arrest", "Whether the TSPDFE Act displaces the Cr.P.C. requirement to present arrestees before a Magistrate within 24 hours", "Whether an accused under the TSPDFE Act must be produced exclusively before a special Court or if the nearest Judicial Magistrate can exercise initial remand jurisdiction." ], "location": "Hyderabad", "prayer": "The present is a second writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus by the same petitioner, and by way of the present writ petition the petitioner herein seeks for production of the four detenus viz., Thallapally Srinivas Goud, Thallapally Sai Sharath, Thallapally Sai Rohith and Palavalasa Siva Saran.", "reserved_date": null, "second_party": [ "1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary and Others" ], "statutes": { "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898": "From dictionary #3:\n\u201cIn the case of State vs Ram Autar Chaudhry [AIR 1955 Allahabad 138], a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that Sec. 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (equivalent to Sec. 57 of the 1973 Code) does not empower a police officer to keep an arrested person in custody longer than necessary\u2026 The inability of admission in jail was not found a justifying reason for delay\u2026 The Criminal Procedure Code does not authorize detention by the police for 24 hours after arrest; 24 hours is the outermost limit, unless a magistrate extends it under Section 167.\u201d", "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973": "Representative excerpts from dictionaries #2, #4, #5, #6, #7:\n\u201cSection 57 of Cr.P.C: No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for more than 24 hours exclusive of travel time\u2026 Section 167(1) of Cr.P.C: Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody and investigation cannot be completed within the period of 24 hours\u2026 the officer-in-charge shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the case diary\u2026 Reading Section 167 of Cr.P.C along with Section 13 of TSPDFE Act shows that the special Act does not completely exclude the standard procedure for initial remand\u2026\u201d", "Constitution of India": "From dictionaries #3, #4, #7 (combined excerpt):\n\u201cArticle 22(2) of the Constitution of India mandates that every person who is arrested and detained in police custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of 24 hours, excluding journey time, and no such person shall be detained beyond that period without the authority of a magistrate. The Court observed that TSPDFE Act does not override this fundamental right, and Section 167 of Cr.P.C. is to be read in harmony with Article 22(2). Any extended detention must strictly comply with these constitutional and statutory safeguards.\u201d", "Indian Penal Code, 1860": "From dictionary #1:\n\u201c3. The aforesaid four detenus are said to be accused and arrested for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short \u2018IPC\u2019) and Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act. The petitioner on an earlier occasion had filed another writ petition\u2026 subsequently when the matter came up for hearing, the said writ petition was disposed of in light of the submissions made by the learned Government Counsel regarding official arrest\u2026 That subsequently\u2026 the present writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed raising two substantial questions of law\u2026\u201d", "N.D.P.S. Act": "From dictionary #2 and #3 (combined excerpt):\n\u201c11. The argument that the applicants were not arrested at the midnight of 19th July 1989 but were detained for interrogation is untenable. Since the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act are cognizable [R. v. Lemsatef (1977) 2 All E.R. 835], the Investigating Officers possess the authority to arrest without warrant. They arrest a suspect or do not arrest at all. The \u2018detention in custody for interrogation\u2019 is unknown to law. Interrogation is known. A person may be lawfully interrogated. But during such interrogation he is a freeman. If he is detained, not allowed to leave\u2026 This restraint is in reality an arrest\u2026\u201d", "Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996": "From dictionary #1:\n\u201c2. The present is a second writ petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus by the same petitioner, and by way of the present writ petition the petitioner herein seeks for production of the four detenus viz., Thallapally Srinivas Goud, Thallapally Sai Sharath, Thallapally Sai Rohith and Palavalasa Siva Saran. This writ petition has been filed substantially on two questions of law, which are: - a) Whether the period of apprehension by the police authorities before the official arrest being shown is also to be considered for the purpose of fulfilling the requirement of producing the so-called apprehended person before the Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours? b) Whether an accused under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996 (for short \u2018TSPDFE Act\u2019) can be produced for the first remand before the nearest Judicial Magistrate or he needs to be presented only before the concerned notified Special Court?\u201d\n\nFrom dictionary #4 (Paragraphs 13 to 15 excerpt):\n\u201c13. We now venture into the second question of law to be considered in the instant case i.e. whether the order of first remand passed by the Judicial Magistrate is proper and legal when in terms of Section 6, 13 and 14 of the TSPDFE Act which mandates the proceedings under the said Act to be exercised only by a special Court duly nominated?\u2026 14. In the instant case, the reason for the said dispute is that after the detenues were apprehended, and later arrested, they were produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate\u2026 15. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once there is a notified Special Court, the initiation of proceedings for remand should only be before the notified Court.\u201d\n\nFrom dictionary #5:\n\u201c15. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 6(1) and 6(2) of the TSPDFE Act, the Government shall by notification constitute a District and Sessions Court as the special Court to deal with matters under the TSPDFE Act. It was also contended\u2026 that no Court other than the special Court notified to hear TSPDFE Act cases shall have jurisdiction\u2026 once when there is a notified special Court to deal with matters pertaining to the said Act, the very initiation of proceedings for remand also should have been only before the notified Court and not before any other Court.\u201d\n\nFrom dictionary #6:\n\u201cReading Section 167 of Cr.P.C along with Section 13 and 14 of TSPDFE Act would clearly force us to reach the conclusion that the word \u2018may\u2019 used in Sub-Section (1) of Section 13 is a discretionary power\u2026 the TSPDFE Act has not completely ousted the applicability of Cr.P.C. Rather it is a case where the special Court follows the procedure laid down under Cr.P.C.\u201d\n\nFrom dictionary #7:\n\u201c25. In the light of the aforesaid judicial precedents and upon reading the two provisions of law, we have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that TSPDFE Act has not in any manner ousted the applicability of the provisions of Cr.P.C. so far as the mandatory requirement which includes the fundamental right of any person who stands apprehended or arrested to be produced before the nearest Judicial Magistrate\u2026 If the said interpretation is not followed, the very purpose of Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 167(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C would be rendered redundant.\u201d" }, "statutes_headnotes": { "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898": "\u2014 Arrest and Detention \u2014 Equivalent to Sections 56, 57 of the 1973 Code \u2014 Mandatory production before Magistrate within twenty-four hours of apprehension \u2014 Delay without Magistrate\u2019s order is illegal \u2014 Detention beyond permissible period held void; those produced in time remain in custody.", "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973": "\u2014 Production before Magistrate within 24 hours from initial apprehension \u2014 Habeas Corpus remedy if detainees are overheld \u2014 Section 57 prohibits detention beyond twenty-four hours without remand \u2014 Section 167(1) requires judicial scrutiny if investigation is incomplete \u2014 TSPDFE Act does not supersede these procedures \u2014 Accused detained beyond permissible limit ordered released; those produced in time remain in custody.", "Constitution of India": "\u2014 Article 22(2) \u2014 24-hour rule for production from initial apprehension \u2014 TSPDFE Act does not override constitutional mandate \u2014 Non-production within 24 hours renders detention illegal \u2014 Accused held beyond permissible time ordered released; others produced in time remain in valid custody.", "Indian Penal Code, 1860": "\u2014 Wrongful confinement \u2014 Offences under Sections 406, 420 read with 120B \u2014 Detention beyond 24 hours without producing the accused before Magistrate contravenes Article 22(2) and Cr.P.C. \u2014 TSPDFE Act does not displace these safeguards \u2014 Merely retaining custody without formal arrest is impermissible \u2014 Unlawful detention amounts to wrongful confinement under Section 340; accused held beyond permissible time ordered released.", "N.D.P.S. Act": "\u2014 Offences under N.D.P.S. Act are cognizable \u2014 Arrest without warrant upheld \u2014 \u2018Detention in custody for interrogation\u2019 is unknown to law \u2014 If a suspect is compelled to remain, it amounts to arrest \u2014 Article 22(2) of Constitution and Sections 57 \u0026 167 Cr.P.C. strictly apply \u2014 Failure to produce within 24 hours violates legal mandates.", "Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1996 (TSPDFE Act)": "\u2014 Writ of Habeas Corpus \u2014 Constitution of Special Court (Ss.6(1) \u0026 6(2)) \u2014 24-hour rule computed from initial apprehension \u2014 \u2018May\u2019 in Section 13(1) preserves normal Cr.P.C. procedure \u2014 TSPDFE Act does not override Article 22(2) or Cr.P.C. safeguards \u2014 Nearest Judicial Magistrate can exercise remand jurisdiction \u2014 Detention beyond 24 hours illegal; Accused Nos.3 and 4 released." } }, "summary": { "formatted_summary": "Multiple individuals were arrested under allegations involving the TSPDFE Act and associated legal provisions. The petitioner filed this second Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, alleging that certain accused persons were detained for more than 24 hours before being officially shown as arrested, thereby contravening Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Sections 57 and 167 of the Cr.P.C. The Court examined whether the TSPDFE Act excludes the requirement of presenting detainees before a Magistrate within 24 hours and if remand should occur before a special Court. Concluding that the TSPDFE Act does not supersede constitutional and statutory safeguards, the Court ordered the release of those held beyond 24 hours and dismissed the appeals of those produced within time." } }