Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form as may be prescribed in this behalf by the State Government.

(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is produced to satisfy himself that the requirements of Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested person.

18. Learned Counsel for the applicant Sri P.K. Singh has urged that a perusal of the provisions of Section 50-A in particular and other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code would indicate that all the guidelines as contained in D.K. Basu's case have not been included in verbatim and, therefore, the said decision still holds the field. He contends that action can be taken for contempt and he has laid emphasis on the recommendations made by the Law Commission in its 177th report referred to herein above. He urges that the provisions in Criminal Procedure Code are not exhaustive and even otherwise there is no corresponding provision in the Indian Penal code so as to provide for an adequate punishment in case the aforesaid guidelines are violated by any police officer. He contends that there is only a partial compliance of the guidelines and mere codification of the said guidelines would not render the implementation effective unless and until there is a provision for punishing the authority in the event of non-compliance. In this view of the matter, he contends that even otherwise the power of contempt can be exercised which is one of the effective instruments for ensuring the rule of law and upholding the majesty of the courts and the directions issued by it. It is for this reason that the Apex Court in D.K. Basu's case had categorically indicated that the power of contempt would be exercised by the respective High Courts in case a complaint is lodged for any disobedience of the directions contained therein. According to Sri Singh, the impact of the said judgment is not at all taken away by the introduction of the various provisions in the amending Act and even otherwise this Court continues to retain the power to punish for contempt as envisaged under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

24. The question as to whether these provisions require to be incorporated in the Statute itself or not or whether the Statute does take care of the situation as well or not can be better answered if the Union of India is also put to notice by this Court and arguments are invited on their behalf with a request to the Attorney General of India to provide assistance in the matter.

25. The other question as to the making of any law, providing for penal action in the cases of custodial violence is concerned, the report of the 177th Law Commission quoted herein above indicates that the provisions already existing in the Indian Penal Code contained in Section 166 thereof do not in any way dilute the powers of the Court under the Contempt of Courts Act. The report of Law Commission indicates that the power of contempt continues to be available to the Court to take action in such matters, A perusal of Article 215 read with the Contempt of Courts Act, indicates that such power can be exercised in the event the orders are violated in relation to the proceedings of the High Court or the Courts subordinate to it. In the instant case, the Supreme Court by way of a direction which presumably is under Article 142 of the Constitution has provided for a penal action by drawing proceedings of contempt. The judgment also indicates that the departmental action against an erring official could also be taken. The aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court in effect expand the powers which are inherent in every High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid directions were presumably made in order to make effective the guidelines contained therein as it would not be possible for every litigant to approach the Supreme Court for any such action in case warranted on the facts of a case. The concerned High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the matter was, therefore, authorized to entertain proceedings of contempt in case they are instituted for violation of the aforesaid guidelines. The question, therefore, arises is as to whether such conferment of jurisdiction on the High Courts was of a transitory nature or does it still continue to authorize the High Court to draw proceedings of contempt after the aforesaid legal provisions have been made for protecting custodial violence. A perusal of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code do not indicate any further corresponding amendments having been brought about for taking penal action for violation of any such guidelines. There are provisions under the Indian Penal Code ensuring criminal prosecution in the event any offences are committed of the nature as defined in the said Act. The same also includes the provisions which constitute a criminal offence in case a public servant disobeys law with any criminal intent. It is in this context that Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code was also considered by the Law Commission while rendering its recommendation. The learned Advocate General has submitted that an authority or police personnel committing any such offence is liable to criminal prosecution and is also liable for departmental action as any such act which is in violation of Law will constitute a misconduct. The question is as to whether any further amendment was required in order to fulfill this basic requirement is a question which deserves to be answered. It is evident from a perusal of the amendments which have been brought about through Act No. 25 of 2005 that no corresponding provisions have been made either in the Criminal Procedure Code or in the Indian Penal Code specifying penal action for violation of the said guidelines. The provision which has been added in Section 50-A, is that the duty of the Magistrate shall be to satisfy himself that the requirements of Sub-section (2) and (3) of the said section have been complied with. There is no further recital that in case the Magistrate is not satisfied about the said requirement, what action in law would be permissible. In such circumstances, the argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant deserves to be given due weight as to why further provisions by way of amendment in cases of specific violation of the said guidelines have not been provided and if that is so then in that event the power of contempt of this Court can be exercised for punishing an errant official.