Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2). Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.

Sec. 151. (1) A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such Suit no. 378/2006 Nagender Kishore Gupta Vs. U.O.I. 12 officer that the commission of the offence can not be otherwise prevented.

Hence the arrest and detention of the plaintiff can not even be said to be U/Sec. 107 Cr.P.C. or atleast the procedure mandated U/Sec. 107 Cr. P.C. was not followed during the arrest and detention of the plaintiff.

Suit no. 378/2006 Nagender Kishore Gupta Vs. U.O.I. 13 Reading of Sec. 151 Cr.P.C. further makes it clear that the arrest under the said section can be made by police officer to avoid the commission of any cognizable offence. In the case in hand, the Police or the Govt. of India has miserably failed to bring on record what cognizable offence might have been committed by the plaintiff. As per Written Statement, the plaintiff was just pledging support for some proposed rally which was being organised by a nationalised party. The said rally was not banned nor it was designed to violate any law. In the case of Medha Patkar Vs. State of M.P. 2008 Cr.LJ 47 (MP) DB; Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the arrest of the petitioner was unconstitutional and violative of article 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the state was directed to pay compensation to all arrested persons. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the right of peaceful demonstration of agitators and held that the petitioner and other project affected people were squatting on the road, shouting slogans demanding rehabilitation and demanding rehabilitation measures. They had no design to commit any cognizable offence. There was nothing on record to raise apprehension that they would disturb public peace or public order. So, their arrest under Sec. 151 Cr.P.C. was held to be unconstitutional being violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. For such illegal arrest and detention in jail of the petitioner and other agitators Hon'ble High Court directed the State to pay petition and other arrested persons, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each. Liberty was given to the State to recover the sums awarded as compensation from the erring police officers responsible for such illegal arrest.

In the case of Balraj Vs. Union of India AIR 1967 Delhi 31; hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that Section 151 Cr. P.C. Can not be used merely on an apprehension of breach of peace for which other provisions may be available.

Suit no. 378/2006 Nagender Kishore Gupta Vs. U.O.I. 14 There must be a design to commit a cognizable offence, in order to arrest a person U/Sec. 151 Cr.P.C.

Sub-section 2 of Sec. 151 Cr.P.C. specifies that no person arrested under Section 1 shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding 24 hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provision of Indian Penal Code or any other law.