Skip to main content

Supreme Court enforces guidelines for arrests in dowry cases

The Supreme Court has warned the police of departmental action and contempt proceedings if they do not follow the checklist in Criminal Procedure Code mandating them to weigh the need to arrest a person accused of dowry harassment.

A bench of Justices C K Prasad and P C Ghose said the police must follow the 'Dos and Don'ts' prescribed under Section 41 of CrPC before arresting a person in an offence punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment on being found guilty.

The checklist mandates that a person accused of such an offence can be arrested if the police officer is satisfied that it was necessary

1. To prevent such person from committing any further offence

2. For proper investigation of the case

3. To prevent the accused from causing disappearance of evidence

4. To prevent accused from tampering with evidence

5. To prevent the person from inducing, threatening or luring the witness to dissuade him/her from disclosing facts to police officer or the court

6. To prevent the accused from absconding

7. To secure his presence before the court during the hearing.

The bench said the law mandated the police officer to record reasons in writing why he came to the conclusion that arrest was necessary and that he had satisfied himself with each and every provision of the checklist.

Justice Prasad, writing the judgment for the bench, said, "In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve/What object will it achieve?

"Before arrest, first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary for one or the more purposes envisaged under Section 41."

If the police arrest and produce a person before a magistrate, and if he finds that the arrest was in breach of the checklist, then he "is duty bound not to authorize further detention and release the accused", the bench said.

The court said the legislature had inserted Section 41 in CrPC to "avoid unnecessary arrest or threat of arrest looming large on accused". This provision asks the police to issue a notice to the accused specifying the time and date for his appearance for purpose of investigation. If the accused complies with the notice and cooperates with the investigation, he would not be arrested.

The bench said if police scrupulously adhered to the mandate of Section 41, then "the wrong committed by police officers intentionally or unwittingly would be reversed and the number of cases which come to the court for grant of anticipatory bail will substantially reduce".

"We would like to emphasize that the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 CrPC for effecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued," it said.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-enforces-arrest-guideline-in-offences-attracting-seven-year-jail-term/articleshow/37732251.cms?intenttarget=no&utm_source=TOI_AShow_OBWidget&utm_medium=Int_Ref&utm_campaign=TOI_AShow

Comments

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...