Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court ruled that the 24-hour period mandated to produce an arrested person before the court begins from the moment he is apprehended. The court effectively called the bluff where the police produce a detenue well after he is apprehended but show 24 hours from the time of stated arrest. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji was dealing with a writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by T. Ramadevi challenging the alleged illegal arrest of her husband Thallapally Srinivas Goud and three others. The four detenus were arrested for various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 of The Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments (TSPDFE) Act. The petitioner on an earlier occasion filed a writ petition at the stage of apprehension. Subsequently, when the matter came up for hearing, the writ petition was disposed of in the light of the official arrest of the detenus and their being sent on judicial remand. The present writ was filed raising two substantial questions of law: Whether the period of apprehension by the police before the official arrest being shown was 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; and Whether an accused under the TSPDFE Act could be produced for the first remand before the nearest judicial magistrate or needed to be presented only before the notified special court concerned. Counsel for the petitioner Y. Soma Srinath Reddy contended that once when the alleged detenu / detenues are apprehended or taken into custody, it was required that the so-called detenu be produced before the judicial magistrate concerned within 24 hours from the date of apprehension. It was also the contention that the period of 24 hours required to be produced before the judicial magistrate would start from the initial time of apprehension. The panel took note of the counter affidavit and observed “What is evident, and an admitted fact, is that accused No.s 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 CrPC. However, the accused No.s 1, 2 and 6, though remained in police custody, were produced within 24 hours before the judicial magistrate.” The panel said, “the very first line of the said provision refers to the term detention. It does not use the term ‘‘from the time of arrest’’, which further strengthens the case of the petitioner when they say that period of detention starts the moment they stand apprehended by the police, as from that moment itself there is a restraint so far as personal liberty of the person is concerned and there is also an arrest of his movement, as he remains under confines of the police personnel. Thus, it would amount to a detention of a person right from the time he is apprehended by the police personnel.” Accordingly, this panel ruled that 24 hours was 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. The panel observed that there was a clear violation of the statutory requirement under Section 57 of CrPC so far as accused No.s 3 and 4 were concerned, and they were accordingly liable to be given the benefit for the illegal act which the respondent-authorities have committed. The panel thereafter ventured into the second question of law i.e., whether the order of first remand passed by the judicial magistrate was proper and legal when in terms of provisions of the TSPDFE Act which mandates the proceedings under the Act to be exercised only by a special court duly nominated. The panel said that the reason for the dispute was that after the detenues were apprehended, and later arrested, they were produced before the nearest judicial magistrate which in the instant case was at Nampally, Hyderabad, and were not produced before the special court notified and constituted under the TSPDFE Act. It was also contended by 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 provision of this Act applied. Swaroop Oorilla, 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 the CrPC. The applicability of CrPC had not been ousted under the TSPDFE Act, rather the special Act also prescribed that so far as the procedures were concerned, it would be the procedure of the CrPC which would be applicable for the special court while trying the matter under the said Act. He argued that the framers of law had deliberately used the term ‘may’ in the said sub-section and therefore it had to be read in a harmonious way, enabling the provisions of the CrPC as also the provisions of TSPDFE Act to be in sync while being in operation. It cannot be said that the provisions of TSPDFE Act totally ousts the applicability of CrPC right from the inception stage. The panel considering various case laws observed that TSPDFE Act had not in any manner ousted the applicability of the provisions of CrPC 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 interpretation was 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 CrPC would render the two provisions redundant. The panel accordingly allowed the petition to the extent of accused No.s 3 and 4 and dismissed with regard to other accused.
OBC Railway Association files plea on election
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the action of the Registrar of Societies and All India Other Backward Class Railway Employees Federation in not recognising the genuinely elected body of South-Central Railway OBC Employees Association. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by South Central Railway OBC Employees Association, Secunderabad, alleging that the respondents refused to legitimise the elections conducted by the association and arbitrarily declared fresh elections while making itself the controlling authority. The petitioner alleged interference by the respondent authorities in the private elections of the association. The petitioner also brought to the notice of judge several lower court and High Court orders directing the respondents to recognise the elections of the petitioners and prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities for provision of facilities and permission to operate their bank account. After hearing the case of the petitioner, directed the respondents to file their response and posted the matter for further adjudication.
Bizman Plea in Drugs Case Dismissed
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of Telangana High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a businessman allegedly involved in a dry ganja case. The judge dealt with an anticipatory bail petition filed by Dinesh Singh, who contended that he was innocent as he was not found in possession of dry ganja. The case of the prosecution was that the three accused were found in possession of 1.394 kg of dry ganja and recorded the confessional panchanama where the involvement of the petitioner came to light. The anticipatory bail petition was opposed by the additional public prosecutor (APP), who also brought to the notice of the judge six similar pending cases against the petitioner. The judge took note of the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and dismissed the bail petition.
