Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, 2008

By

 State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, 2008

Introduction

Although, Chapter V of the CrPC, 1973 deals with the provisions for the "Arrest of Persons", the Code nowhere mentions any provision regarding what constitutes "arrest" or "custody". The Apex Court in this case (State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, 2008) dealt with this issue and tried to give a definite shape as to what constitutes "arrest" and "custody".

Facts

These appeals were made by the State of Haryana and Lalit Kumar after the Punjab & Haryana High Court made two different views through different benches over a similar issue as to whether a voluntary appearance of the accused before a magistrate for bail and granted bail immediately do constitute arrest or not. 

The present appeals had been raised over two different cases. In both cases, the plaintiffs applied for appointment as constable drivers under the Haryana Police. A column asking whether the applicants (plaintiffs - Dinesh and Lalit and Bhupinder) have ever been arrested or convicted was answered in negative by both the plaintiffs. But during verification, it was revealed that earlier both the plaintiffs were charged for some offences under IPC but had been granted bail by voluntarily appearing before the magistrate and had been acquitted ultimately. Therefore the gov. of Haryana rejected their application stating that they are to be considered arrested. Hence the two cases filed by the plaintiffs against the State of Haryana.

Issue 

Whether the voluntary appearance made by the accused and his ultimate release without being taken into formal custody would constitute arrest or not?

Ratio Decidendi

1. S.46(1) CrPC provides for arrest to be made by actual touching or confining the body unless submitted to custody by word or action.

2. State of UP v. Deomen (1960)- Even those words of the accused which may be used as evidence against him can make him submit to custody. 

3. Meaning of arrest as per the Halsbury Laws of England
  1. Arrest means the deprivation of one's personal liberty. 
  2. It consists of taking anyone into custody of a person authorised by law to detain him to answer a criminal charge or to prevent the commission of an offence.
3. Niranjan Singh case 1980:- 
  1. Anyone who is under the control of the Court or is in the physical hold of an officer with coercive power will be considered to be in custody for the purpose of S.439 CrPC.
  2. Unless a person accused of an offence is in custody he cannot move the Court for bail under Section 439 of the Code.

Decision 

  1. The issue raised in the case was very complex and engaged for a long this Court and other High Courts, it would be unreasonable to expect a common man to construe its proper meaning.
  2. Although the decision of the High Court was right in the appeal of Lalit and Bhupinder (arising out of the 2nd case), this Court gave both candidates the benefit of a mistaken impression and applied the order of the High Court made in the 1st case registered by Dinesh Kumar.

 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more