| Headnote |
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 ArmedForces (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 authoritiesafter two months-Whetherthis was done lVith the least pos .. sibledelay within meaning.of s. 5-Remc.nd orders by Magistrate exceed ing I 5 days-Code of CriminalProcedure no~ applicable to area-Spirit of Code only applies-Re1na11dorders exceeding 15· days l:hen not un~ conscionablylong do not vitiatedetention. The petitionj'r wa> a residentof MizoDistrict.He wasarrested by the Armed Folrces unders .. 4(c) of theArmedForces (Assam & Manipur) Special PowersAct, 1958.He was handedover to the Civil Authorities onMarch 2, 1968, i.e., abouttwo monthsafter his arrest.Thereafter twocriminalcases covering a wide range of offencesunder the Assam Maintenance.of PublicOrder Act, the ArmsAct and severalsectionsof theIndian PenalCode were startedagainst him. He wasremandedto Judicialcustody from time to timethe period of remandbeing on each occasionmore than 15 days.He filed a p~tition for a writof /1abtas corpus in the High Court andon its dismissalhe .filed a writpetitionin this Court underArt. 32 of theConstitution.The questions that fell for considerationwere : (i) whetherhis detention was illegalon theground !hat thearmedforces had not handedhim overto the civil,,uthorities withthe 'leastpossibledelay' as requiredby s. 5 ofthe1958Act; (ii) whetherthe dotentionof thepetitionercould be heldto be illegal because(a) tl.e remand orders were for morethan 15 days and (b) there wasa breakin theremandorders while the petitionunder Art. 3~ was J'!'Dding in this Court . . HELD: (i) Under s. 5oftheArmedForces (Assam & Manipur) Special.Powers Act the personarrestedhas to be madeover to the officer inchargeof thenearestpolice stationwith the leastpossibledelay. to gether with the circumstancesoccasioning the airest. What is the least possible delay in a casedependsupon the facts,that is to say, how. where and in whatcircumstances the arrest was affected. In the presentcase the petitionerwas, accordingto theaffidavit filed on behalf of theState Government,connected with the Mizo hostileswho werewaging 'ar againstIndia.. It was, therefore,necessary to questionhim about his associateshis storesof arms,and likematters.The difficultyof theterrain, the prese~ce. ofhostile el~ments in theareamust be considered in ihis connection.Although the ArmedForces surrenderedthe petitione'rlo theCivilauthoritiesafter •ome delay, which was not intendedby thelaw, !here was nottoo muchdelay. [506 A-DJ (ii)The Criminal Proc~du.re <:ode is not _applica~le by reas9n of :he sixthScheduleto the Constitution, in thearea m question. Onlythe >p1r1t of the Cri!"inal Procedure~de applies. !h~refore strict COJ!lP}iance "tth theprovisionsof Art, 34 could not be mS1sted on. [506 E-F] S/tlte of Nagalarrd v. tti>n Singh, iiJ966] 3 S.C.R.830, referredto. 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 2 S.C.R. The periodof remandin thepresent case was eachtime mdre than 15 daysbut not so unconscionably fang as to violatethe spiritof the Code.There was a gap when the petitioner was in thecustodyof this courtbut no request was madefor his releasethen. He was remanded tothecustodyof tlte Magistrate by this Courtand thereafter his deten tioncouldnot be held to be illegal.[406 G] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : WritPetitionNo. 238of 1970. Petitionunder Art. 32 of theConstitution of Indiafor writ in the natureof habeas corpus. Hardev Singh, for the appellant. Naunit Lal, for therespondent. TheJudgmentof theCourtwas deliveredby Hidayatullah, C. J. The petitionerRohlua has appliedfor his releaseby theissuanceof a writof Habeas Corpus. Previouslyhe hadappliedto theHigh Court of Assam & Nagaland(Misc. Criminal Case No. 506 of 1969)but his petitionwas dismissed. Thefactsare as follows: Thepetitioneris admittedlyan inhabitantof Bakupi in the MizoDistrict.He wasarrestedby theArmedForces under s. 4(c) of theArmedForces (Assam & Manipur)Special Powers Act,1958.He washandedover to theCivilAuthorities on March 2,1968. Sinc'e thentwo criminalcases have beenstartedagainst himon November 10, 1969and February26, 1970. They cover awiderangeof offencesuader the AssamMaintenanceof Public · Order Act,the ArmsAct, severalsectionsof theIndian P.:nal Code. etc.The casesare pendingagainst him. Thepetitioner's c01nplaint is that he wasnot informedof the groundsof hisarrest and detention,that no warrantwas shownto himand thathe wasdeniedthe rightof makingrepresentations. · His furthergrievance is that the caseshave not been tried andhe is heldin me·ga1 custodywithout obtainingproper remandsfrom Magistrates. A B c D E F Theseallegationsare controvertedin counter-affidavits by Mr. D. B. Poonthe Additional DeputyCommissioner, Mizo Dis trict, Aijal.Accordingto himthe petJtionerwas arrestedwithout ·warrant by theArmedForces as is aut. horisedunder s. 4(c) of the G Armed Forces(Assam & Manipur)Special PowersAct. The peti tioner wasinformedof thegrounds of his arrestand as soon as he was handedover to theCivilAuthoritieshe wasprosecutedfor the offences.The petitioner was also given ·the grounds of det~ntion alongwith the detentionorder on May 9, 1968.He couldhave representedto theAdvisoryBoard but did not makea representa tion. . Since thenthe petitionermade a confessionwhich is also exhibitedin thecasebut as he is tobetriedwe do notreferto it here. H v. L. ROHLUA v. DY. COMMR. AIJAL (Hidayatu/lah, C.J.) 505 A The State authorities have producedthe order-sheetsfrom the cases.From them it appearsthat the petitionerwas chargedin theCourtof theAdditionalDistrict Magistrateon March3, 1968 and was keptin judicialcustody.He hassincebeen remandedto jailcustodyfrom time to time.· On July28, thisCourtin the Habeas Corpus petitionorderedhis productionin Courtand ap- BpointedMr. Hardev Singh Advocate as Amicus Curiae. The petitionerthen filed a secondaffidaviton August3, 1970. In thataffidavithe hasallegedthat he was handedover to the civilauthoritiesby theArmedForces after 2 monthsfrom his arrest,his confessionalstatement was obtained at gun-point,that c no order was servedon himunderthe AssamMaintenanceof Public Order Act,1953,that he was tortured,that the detention order was vagueand that as the remandorder expiredon July 18, 1970 hisfurtherdetentionbecame illegal. D In replyto this anotheraffidavithas beenfiled by Mr.D. B. Poon.According to him the petitioner was handedover to the civilauthoritieson March2, 1968and the petitionerwas pro ducedbeforea Magistratethe verynext day.The orderof remandmade on thatday has. beenfiled.The lastorder of remand was made on June 20, 1970 andit was till July18, 1970. Since thenanotherorder of remandhas beenproducedandthe Eremand is to run till September 28,1970:Duringthe timehe hasbeen in the custodyof thisCourtthere has beena breakin theordersof remand as willappearpresently.The Additional D~puty Commissioneralso statedthat owing to shortageof accom modationat AijalJail t.he petitioner was kept in DibrugarhJail tillhisproductionin thisCourt.In a supplementaryaffidavit F the AdditionalDeputy Commissionerhas explainedthat the petitioner was heldfor sometime by theArmedForces for inter- . rogationat theSecurityForce Head Quartersbecause of his con nectionwith activities against the securityof the State andhis closeassociationwith the outlawedMizo National Fron( Army andwith Pakistan, thatbeforethe lastorder of remandexpired the. petiti~ner was putin thecustodyof thisCourtand that now G he 1s agamon a properremandhy theMagistratein theoriginal custody.The affidavitalso statesthat the CriminalProcedure Codedoes not applyto theMizoDistrictand the spiritof the Codehas beenfollowedin thiscase,that the petitio.ner was pro d~ce
|
