Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The concept of personal liberty is the bedrock of a constitutional democracy, a primordial right so inextricably linked to human dignity, that one cannot conceive of meaningful existence in its absence. It is neither a gift of the state nor a creature of th the codified statutes, rather it is a pre-political political and inherent attribute attribute of humanity that the law merely seeks to recognize and fortify. The antiquity of this reverence is evidenced by the fact that as early as 13th Century, long before the contemporary lexicon of human rights was articulated, Clause 39 of Magna Carta (1215) decreed that no free authenticity of this order/ judgment man shall be disseised of his liberties save by the per legem terrae, i.e. the law of land, relevant whereof (translated version) reads thus:

(iv). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a judgment titled as Ashak Hussain Allah Detha alias Siddique and another versus Assistant Collector of Customs (P.), Bombay and another, 1990 SCC Online Bom 3; has held as under:

"7. Admittedly, the Applicants were detained without any authority from the midnight of 20th July, 1989 to 5.20 p.m. of 21st July, authenticity of this order/ judgment 1989 - for 17 hours. Their arrest has been so recorded that their production before the Magistrate falls within 24 hours stipulated by Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Prosecution urges that after the "arrest" they were not detained beyond 24 hours. This submission is a distortion of the true meaning of the constitutional guarantee against detention without the sanction of judicial Tribunal. The word "arrest" has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law. The true meaning needs to be understood. The word "arrest" is a term of art. It starts with the arrester taking a person into his custody by action or on words restraining him from moving anywhere beyond the arrester's control, and it continues until the person so restrained is either released from custody or, having been brought before a Magistrate, is remanded in custody by the Magistrate's judicial act. In substance "arrest" is the restraint on a man's personal liberty by the power or colour of lawful authority (The Law Lexicon - P. Ramanatha Aiyar Reprint Edition 1987, page 85]. In its natural sense also "arrest" means the restraint on or deprivation of one's personal liberty (The Law Lexicon - T.P. Mukherjee, (1989) page 177-
178.].
1. Christie v. Leachinsky, (1947)1 All England Reporter 567, Holgate Mohammed v. Duke, (1984)1 All England Reporter 1054. Both quoted in WORDS AND PHRASES LEGALLY DEFINED Vol. 1, Third Edition - page 113.
It is thus clear that arrest being a restraint on the personal liberty, it is complete when such restraint by an authority, commences (The Law Lexicon - P. Ramanatha Aiyar Reprint Edition 1987, page 85]. Whether a person is arrested or not does not depend on the legality of the Act. It is enough if an authority clothed with the power to arrest, actually imposes the restraint by physical act or words. Whether a person is arrested depends on whether he has been deprived of his personal liberty to go where he pleases (The Law Lexicon - T.P. Mukherjee (1989), Page 177- 178]. It stands to reason, therefore, that what label the investigating officer affixes to his act of restraint is irrelevant. For the same reason, the record of the time of arrest is not an index to the actual time of arrest. The arrest commences with the restraint placed on the liberty of the accused and not with the time of "arrest" recorded by the Arresting Officers.