http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: JAGE RAM, INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HANS RAJ MIDHA

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/11/1971

BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN PALEKAR, D.G.

CITATION:  1972 AIR 1140            1972 SCR  (2) 409  1972 SCC  (1) 181

ACT: Judgment  Expunging  of remarks  against  authorities  whose conduct comes into consideration before courts-Principles to be followed Habeas Corpus-Duty of Court.

HEADNOTE: The  High  Court in its order disposing of a  habeas  corpus petition stated that the detenu had been taken into  custody on   the   5th   of  May,  1968,  that   his   arrest   "had surreptitiously been" sworn to have taken place on the  10th of May, 1968, and that he was subjected to torture resulting in  injuries.  The appellants filed appeal in this Court  to expunge these statements. Dismissing the appeal, HELD:     In State of U.P. v. Mohammad Naim, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 363, this court has observed that the matters which have  to be  kept in view in considering whether the remarks made  in judgments  against  authorities  whose  conduct  comes  into consideration  before  the  courts of law  in  cases  to  be decided by them are disparaging are : (a) whether the  party whose conduct is in question is before the Court or has  any opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b)  whether there  is  evidence  on  record  bearing  on  that   conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary  for the  decision of the case, as an integral part  thereof,  to animadvert  on  that conduct.  It has also  been  recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature  and should  not  normally depart from sobriety,  moderation  and reserve. [420 D] On the facts of the case and the evidence on record, none of the  remarks  to  which exception has been  taken  could  be described  as unwarranted, unnecessary or irrelevant or  can be characterised as generalisation or of a sweeping  nature. The appellants had opportunity of filing their affidavits to give  their  own  version, which, they have  done  in  great detail, showing that they knew what the allegations  against them  were.  If they wanted to produce any other  person  in support of their stand that the accused was only arrested on the  10th and not on the 5th or that the injuries  found  on the  accused  were old and were not fresh, they  could  have done so. In a habeas corpus petition where allegations are made  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

a  citizen of this country is in illegal custody, it is  the duty  of the Court to safeguard the freedom of  the  citizen which has been guaranteed to him by the Constitution and  to immediately take such action as would ensure that no person, however high or low, acts in contravention of the law or  in a  high handed arbitrary or illegal manner.  While no  doubt it  is  the  duty  of the Court  to  safeguard  against  any encroachment on the life and liberty of individuals, at  the same time, it has to be recognised that the authorities  who have the_ responsibility to discharge their functions vested in  them under the law of the country should not be  impeded or interfered with without justification.  In furtherance of this  duty  the High Court passed the orders  which  in  the circumstances of the case was fully justified. [419 F] 410

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal no. 35  of 1969. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated May  20,  1968  of  the Punjab and  Haryana  High  Court  in Criminal Original No. 50-M of 1968. R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.   Jagammohan  Reddy,  J.  This appeal  is  for  expunging certain remarks made against Appellants in the order of  the Punjab  &  Haryana High Court on a  Habeas  Corpus  Petition filed  by one Hans Raj Midha for the production of  his  son Prem  Prakash  Midha  who  is said  to  have  been  detained illegally by the Central Investigation Agency (C.I.A.) Staff Kamal.  In an investigation of an offence of theft committed on  1-4-68  of a Cash Box containing Rs. 10667/87  from  the Head  Post Office, Kamal where the said Prem  Prakash  Midha was working as a Clerk Incharge in the Savings Bank Section. It appears from the Habeas Corpus Petition presented to  the High  Court  on  10-5-68 that after  Prem  Prakash  who  was working in the Bank, had gone out to meet his wife and  came back he found the cash box missing.  Immediately he reported the loss to the Assistant Post Master.  It also appears from the affidavit filed on the return made by the appellant Jage Ram that a report of the theft of Rs. 10667/87 belonging  to the  Postal  Department was given on the same day  over  the telephone,  an F.I.R. was issued under Sec. 380 IPC  by  the Police   Station,  City,  Karnal.   After  tie  Police   had investigated  the offence the investigation was handed  over to  the  CIA Karnal under the orders  of  Superintendent  of Police, Karnal on 24-4-68.  The Petitioner’s father  alleged in his Habeas Corpus petition that his son Prem Parkash  was interrogated  in his house before the case was entrusted  to the CIA but nothing incriminating was discovered; that on 5- 5-68 at about 5 p.m. he was taken away by ASI Dyal Chand and a  foot  constable as Prem Parkash was wanted by  Shri  Jage Ram, Inspector CIA; that Shri Ravinder Mehta the brother-in- law  of  the accused went to the CIA Staff office  at  Model Town and found him in their custody, but he was not  allowed to  meet  him that day.  The next day on 6-5-68  the  father went to the Police Station at Model Town to  see him but  he was not allowed to enter the premises nor was     he allowed to interview his son.  While the father was there he   heard the  cries  of  his son who was  obviously  being  tortured. Ravinder Mehta also visited the CIA staff on 7th and 8th and 9th May 1968 and heard the cries and wailing of Prem Prakash

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

who was being tortured.  The father of the petitioner 411 had also visited the Police Station from 7th to 9th when  he heard the hue and cry of Prem Prakash.  It was alleged  that Jage  Ram, Inspector CIA and Dyal Chand, ASI were  torturing Prem  Prakash  brutally  and illegally and  prayed  that  "a search  warrant  may be issued and a Court  officer  may  be deputed  to  effect the search of Prem Prakash  at  the  CIA Staff, Model, Town Karnal or at any place pointed out by the father  of  Prem  Prakash, his wife  or  his  brother-in-law Ravinder  Mehta;"  that a rule for the  production  of  Prem Prakash  may  be issued and that he may  also  be  medically examined  immediately.  On the petition being  presented  on 10-5-68  the same day Jindra Lal, J. sitting  singly  passed the following order               "Rule returnable on Monday the 13th May, 1968.               On  the  request  of  the  learned  Counsel  I               appoint  Shri  Sadhu Ram Gupta, my  Reader  to               accompany  the  petitioner and to  search  the               office of the C.I.A. Staff Kamal, or any other               place  where  the  detenu  is  alleged  to  be               confined.   If  the detenu is  really  in  the               custody   of  the  Respondents,  he  must   be               produced  before this Court on the  13th  May,               1968,  also if he is really in the custody  of               the   Respondents  or  any   other   detaining               authority  in  Kamal  he  must  be   forthwith               medically   examined  by  the  Chief   Medical               Officer, Kamal, or in his absence from  Kamal,               the Officer next in Charge". In compliance with these orders, according to the report  of Shri  Sadhu  Ram Gupta the Reader of the learned  Judge,  he reached the C.I.A. Staff Office at 8.30 P.M. on the same day accompanied  by  the  father of the  accused  and  one  Shri Narinder  Singh an Assistant in the Criminal Branch of  that Court whom he took after obtaining verbal permission of  the Judge as he has been going on such raids previously.   After reaching  the  Police  Station they  saw  one  Kashmiri  Lal constable  (No.  267)  who on enquiry  told  them  that  the Inspector  and the Asstt.  Inspector had gone to take  their meals.   They then entered the main building and  asked  the petitioner to call out the detenu by his name and heard  the faint voice of Prem Prakash Midha coming from a room.   They lit the torch and opened the shutters and found Prem Prakash Midha  lying on a gunny carpet spread on the floor  and  saw that  his feet were swollen and he had some injuries on  his head.  The accused told them that he had been called on  the 5th  May  1968  by Dyal Chand and some  constables  and  was detained in the C.I.A. Staff since then.  He was not allowed to  move  out nor any of his relatives were allowed  to  see him.  He also told them that he had been daily  administered beating  with  a chanda by both the respondents.   On  their enquiry  Kashmiri  Lal told them that there were  no  papers relating to enquiry in connection with which the detenu  had been detained nor was 13-L 500 Sup CI/72 412 there  any  daily diary register maintained  in  the  C.I.A. staff  office.  In the meantime when another  constable  Uma Datt  in plain clothes reached there he was taken  aside  by constable   Kashmiri  Lal  who  asked  him  to  inform   the Respondents   i.e.  the  Inspector  and  the  Asstt.    Sub. Inspector about the purpose of their arrival.  At about 9.10 p.m.  the said constable came and told that he had  informed the  Respondents  and that they would reach soon.   At  9.25

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

p.m. one person in plain clothes came in the courtyard on  a cycle  and  when  asked  if  Respondent  No.  1  namely  the Inspector  had come, he told him that he would just  go  and bring him.  As soon as he had asked him to go some relatives of  the petitioners who were in the courtyard told him  that he was ASI Dyal Chand Respondent No. 2, add immediately  the Court Reader asked him not to go but in spite of it he  went away  on  his cycle.  Al 10.50 p.m. Jage  Ram  Respondent  1 reached  the office and told him that the detenu  was  under their  legal arrest.  When he was requested to show him  the papers  concerning  the arrest of the accused  Respondent  1 told  him  that  the papers were with Respondent  2  and  he directed  Kashmiri  Lal  to ask Dayal  Chand  to  bring  the relevant  papers.   At about 11.15 p.m. someone out  of  the relatives of the petitioner had told them that Respondent  2 was  busy  writing  some papers in a  nearby  house  and  he therefore  asked Shri Narinder Singh to go and find out  the matter.   Within ten minutes Shri Narinder Singh  came  back with  ASI  Dayal Chand and told him in the presence  of  the Respondent  No.  1 that the ASI was preparing a  Zimini  and that he had taken out the carbon papers in his presence  and that further the ASI had tagged those papers along with  the police  life.   Respondent  No. 2 handed over  the  file  to Respondent I which related to the FIR No. 88 dated 1-4-68 P. S. Saddar Karnal for an offence under Sec. 380 IPC.  It  was neither indexed nor page marked.  The last zimini was No. 25 which  Narinder  Singh  told him he had  seen  Respondent  2 writing  and it was tagged in his presence.  This Zimini  in which  the reasons for the detenu being an accused  and  his arrest are     was  dated 10-5- 68, and it did not bear  any time  there  on given initialled by the Court  Reader.   The Court Reader further says that no remand order was shown  to him but an application for remand and forwarding endorsement of  the  Government Pleader dated 10-5-68 was shown  to  him which  he, initialled on being asked by Respondent No. 1  to do  so.   Thereafter  he  served the  notices  on  both  the Respondents.   After the notices served Respondent  1  asked Respondent  2 to take the detenu to Duty Magistrate for  his remand.   The Court Reader asked the Respondents to get  the detenu  medically examined before the remand was  taken  but they  did  not  care  and took him on  their  cycle  to  the residence of the Magistrate at 11.35 p.m. The Court  Readers and other followed them and found them talking with the Duty Magistrate in the gate of his 413 residence.   The  Court  Reader brought  the  order  of  the Hon’ble High Court to the notice of the Magistrate and  also gave him a copy of the orders as desired by him.  Upon  this the  learned Magistrate ordered the remand of the detenu  to the  judicial custody upto 13th May 1968 and  also  directed the  Appellant  to get him medically examined by  the  Chief Medical  Officer, Karnal.  Respondent No. 2 took the  detenu to Civil hospital and wanted to get the detenu examined from the Doctor on night duty but on their reaching the  hospital and showing the orders of the High Court the Doctor declined to  examine and asked the Police and themselves to take  the detenu  to  the  residence  of the  C.M.O.  The  C.M.O.  was awakened  during  the night at 1.35 a.m. and was  shown  the orders of the High Court and after going through the same he made an endorsement that he would himself examine the detenu in  the  morning after looking at the injuries  and  ordered that  the detenu be admitted in the hospital in  the  night. Al  8.45  a.m. on 11-5-68 the C.M.O.  himself  examined  the detenu  in  their  presence and handed over  two  copies  of Medical Iegal report which were enclosed with the report  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

the Court Reader.  On 13th May 1968 the detenu was  produced before R. P. Khosla, J. alongwith the returns filed by  Jage Ram, Inspector and Dayal Chand, ASI. According to Dayal Chand’s affidavit he was associated  with the investigations along with Jage Ram Inspector from 4.5.68 to  9-5-68.   On enquiry made from the Post  office  it  was revealed  that  Prem  Prakash accused  had  not  marked  his attendance  in  the Post Office and he had sent  the  report that  the  accused  was out of station  and  on  8-5-68  the deponent himself went to the house of the accused but  could not  find  him  there.   It was  on  10-5-68  when  he  sent constable  Bhagwan Dass No. 788 to the house of the  accused he  came back and reported that the accused had met him  and promisedto  come and join the investigation; accordingly  at about  1  1.30 a.m. the accused came.  At that  time  Partap Singh,  Inspector Weights and Measures and one  Jaswant  Rai were present.  The Respondent interrogated the accused  from 11.30  to  12.25 noon and thereafter arrested him  at  12.30 noon.   At the time of arrest the person of the accused  was searched  and  a memo relating to the  search  was  prepared which  was  attested by Shri Partap Singh and  Jaswant  Rai. Another Memo was prepared giving the visible injuries on the person  of  the accused.  The deponent then wrote  down  the case  diary for 10.5.68 from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.  incorporating the  entire investigation for the day up to that  time.   As there  was a paucity of constables in the CIA as  they  were mostly on election duty the only constable who was available at  the time of the arrest of Prem Prakash accused  was  the Moharir  constable  Kashmiri Lal.  The  deponent  left  Prem Prakash accused in the custody of Kashmiri Lal and at about 6.15 p.m. went in search of his immediate officer Jage Ram,, 414 Inspector whom he contacted at about 7.30 p.m. and got  the, remand  papers  relating to the accused  forwarded  by  him. Then he went in search of H. P. Tiku, Prosecuting  Inspector whom he could contact only at 9. p.m. when the remand papers were  shown  to  him and got them  forwarded  by  him  also. Thereafter  with these remand papers and the case  diary  in the  basket of the cycle the deponent came to the office  of the  C.I.A. staff with the intention of taking Prem  Prakash to  the Illaqa Magistrate for remand.  It may be  useful  to give his version thereafter in his own words               "But hardly had he entered the compound of the               office  when  a  gentleman  who  informed  the               deponent that he had come from the High  Court               asked the deponent to bring Inspector Jage Ram               to him.  The deponent told that gentleman that               the  Inspector was on election duty  and  that               the  deponent would search him out  and  bring               him.  The deponent thereupon went in search of               the  Inspector on a cycle.  The  deponent  did               not  hear any ’call of the reader from  behind               may  be  because of the suffering of  hard  of               hearing.   The Inspector was found  in  P.W.D.               Rest  House at about 10 p.m. and informed  him               that  some gentleman from the High  Court  had               come  and wanted to see him.   Inspector  Jage               Ram  thereupon  left  for the  office  of  the               C.I.A. Staff.               That   from  the  P.W.D.  Rest   House   after               informing Inspector Jage Ram of the arrival of               the gentleman from the High Court the deponent               went  to find out whether the duty  Magistrate               was  at  his  residence.   Finding  the   duty               Magistrate at his residence the deponent  came

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

             back  to the office of C.I.A. Staff  where  he               came  to know that the gentleman who had  come               from the High Court was the Reader of  Hon’ble               Mr.  Justice Jindra Lal and had come  with  an               order  of  the  Hon’ble Judge  in  the  Habeas               Corpus Petition of Prem Prakash accused.   The               order   was  served  upon  the  deponent   and               deponent  signed  it in token  of  service  at               10.35 p.m, After that the deponent showed  the               case  diaries  and the remand  papers  to  the               Reader,  who signed both of them  but  without               mentioning   the   time.   Before   the   duty               Magistrate  the reader again signed  the  case               diaries  and mentioned a time  underneath  the               signatures." The  return of Inspector Jage Ram gives some facts which  he came to know as a result of his investigation of the  charge against  the accused which is not relevant for the  purposes of this appeal.  It however, appears that even according  to him the accused could 415 not be traced till 10.5.68 when on that day, because he  was busy  in  election arrangements he had  directed  ASI  Dayal Chand to carry on the investigation on that day and make  an possible efforts to join the accused Prem Prakash Midha with the  investigation.  He was informed at about 7.30  p.m.  by ASI Dayal Chand that the accused had been arrested at  12.30 noon and was also shown the reasons of arrest written in the case diary and got the remand papers forwarded from him.  At about  10 p.m. Dayal Chand again contacted and informed  the deponent at the P.W.D. Rest House that a gentleman from  the High  Court whom Shri S. M. Mehta who is the  brother-in-law of  the accused seemed to have brought as ’Safarshi’  wanted to  see the deponent.  He further mentioned that  previously also  on  2-5-68  Ravinder Mehta accompanied  by  one  other person  had come to the deponent with two letters from  Shri Gurdian Singh Nurpuri who was a Magistrate at Gidarabha when the  deponent was posted there as Inspector in  1965-66  and tried  to influence the deponent in favour of  the  accused. He enclosed the copies of these two letters.  Thereafter the deponent proceeds to say as follows               "On  receiving this information from ASI  Dial               Chand the deponent proceeded to the office  of               the C.I.A. Staff Kamal.  There Shri Sadhu  Ram               Reader  to the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jindra  Lal               introduced himself to the deponent and  served               upon  him the orders of the Hon’ble  Judge  at               about   10.30  P.M.  The  deponent   thereupon               informed  the  reader  that  the  accused  was               arrested  at about 12.30 noon on the same  day               by  ASI Dial Chand.  His remand could  not  be               taken   so  far  due  to  preoccupation   with               election  work but ASI Dial Chand had  already               got  the application for remand endorsed  from               the  deponent  at  about  7.30  P.M.  and  the               accused  was  shortly  going  to  be  produced               before a Magistrate for purposes of  obtaining               remand.  After about 5 minutes ASI Dial  Chand               also reached the C.I.A. Office and showed  the               case diaries and remand papers to the  Reader,               who  signed  both of them.  At that  time  the               Reader  had not given any time underneath  his               signature.   Later on when the  remand  papers               and  case  diaries were  produced  before  the               Magistrate  Shri N. K. Jain the  Reader  again

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

             put  his  signature  on  the  case  diary  and               mentioned the time as 11.15 p.m. underneath." In  short both these officers deny the allegations  made  in the Habeas Corpus petition of the father of the accused. From the affidavits the case of the appellants was that they had  not arrested the accused on 5-5-68 as alleged  nor  had they 416 kept  him in their custody without obtaining a lawful  order of  remand for their custody, but had arrested him  only  on 10-5  -68  at about 12.30 p.m. In so far as  the  order  for remand  to  their  custody from  a  Judicial  Magistrate  is concerned  it is clear from their statement that-it was  got only after the High Court’s orders for the production of the accused  were served on them, though no doubt they say  that because  they were busy, the papers could only  be  prepared and  the  Public Prosecutor’s  endorsement  forwarding  them could  only  be  obtained  by about  9  p.m.  on  that  day. Secondly they do not deny that there were no injuries on the accused,  but  it  is  only contended  that  they  were  old injuries  which  were  noted  down.   Thirdly  there  is   a divergence  in  the statements of Dayal Chand and  Jage  Ram that while Dayal Chand says as soon as he was asked by  some gentleman from the High Court to call Jage Ram he went  away and  that he did not hear anything further due to his  being hard  of  hearing  even though he was called  back  by  that gentleman.   While Jage Ram says that Dayal Chand  had  told him  that a gentleman from the, High Court whom Shri  Mehta, who  is  the  brother-in-law of the accused  seems  to  have brought as ’Safarshi’ wanted to see the deponent. If as Dayal Chand says he did not hear even his being called back  how  did he in the first instance know he  was  called back  and secondly since there was no talk between  him  and the gentleman from the High Court how he could have informed Respondent  1  that Shri Mehta, the  brother-in-law  of  the accused  seems to have brought him for Safarash.  These  are not explained.  There is nothing in Dayal Chand’s  affidavit that he had said that Mehta who came was the  brother-in-law or that he had brought the gentleman from the High Court for ’Safarash’.  Even according to Respondent 1’s statement what Respondent 2 told him was one S. M. Mehta had come while the brother-in-law  is Ravinder Mehta.  It is however  contended by   Shri  Sachthey,  the  learned  Advocate  for  the   two Appellants  that previously certain ’Safarashi’ letters  had been  brought  by Shri S. M. Mehta an employee of  the  High Court  and Ravinder Mehta who is the brother-in-law  of  the accused   from  one  Gurdial  Singh  Nurpuri  the   Judicial Magistrate  of  Gidarabha and so he thought that  Mehta  had brought  the gentleman from the High Court  for  ’Safarash’. This explanation in our view is naive but however that  does not explain how Dayal Chand came to know of this when he did not have time to have a talk with any of the persons who had accompanied  the Court officer, which fact is  also  evident from  the report of the Court Officer who said that as  soon as  he asked to see Jage Ram the person on the cycle  namely Dayal  Chand got on his cycle and went away in spite of  the fact that immediately thereafter he recalled him back but he did not return.  If as Dayal Chand says that the person  who told him that he was from the High Court 417 is  true that person would not have failed to  disclose  the purpose of his visit namely that he had got orders from  the High  Court. it will be difficult to believe that  a  Police Officer  will merely rush to call Jage Ram  without  further enquiry if he was merely informed that he had come from  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

High Court and assume that the purpose of his visit was only Safarash.  No police officer would be inclined to be in such a  great  hurry to rush to call his superior  if  he  merely believed that a gentleman from the High Court was there only for  the purpose of ’Safarash’ and not on an official  duty. If  it was however the former and if he was so  inclined  to send  for the officer without ascertaining the  purpose  for which  that  gentleman came he would have sent  a  constable instead of himself rushing to bring Inspector Jage Ram.  The haste  with which he left the scene even without paying  any attention  when  he was called back indicates that  he  must have  known the purpose why the person from the  High  Court had come.  While we are on this topic we may pause to  refer to  a  matter  which is being sought to  be  utilised  as  a justification for the inference that the gentleman from  the High  Court  had also come for ’Safarashi’ work.   This  has reference  to the letters written by Gurdial  Singh  Nurpuri Judicial Magistrate, Gidarabha which were enclosed with  the return filed by Jage Ram.  Though they may look innocuous if given  by  any friend of the Inspector in as  much  as  they merely ask him to help Prem Parkash Midha the accused who is said  to have been the complainant in a theft case to  trace the  real  culprit, but coming as they do  from  a  Judicial Magistrate  to  a  police officer in a state  where  we  are informed  by  Mr.  Sachthey  on  instructions  there  is   a separation  of judiciary from executive are not  proper  and are likely to be understood as interference in the discharge of duties by the police officers.  It would appear from  the second letter that the Judicial Magistrate had shown special interest  because he seems to have personally come to  Kamal from  Gidarabha for the purpose of talking to the  Appellant Jage  Ram but as he found him away he gave that letter.   In any case whether these letters at the time when he  received them  were treated by the addressee as interfering with  his duties or not they undermine the confidence in the judiciary by  giving rise to the comment that such  judicial  officers may equally be susceptible to influence in the discharge  of their  duties  by parties who are likely  to  appear  before them.   It is in the best interest of Judicial officers  not to  indulge  in  such practices.  This matter  may  also  be brought  to the notice of the High Court for such action  as it may think necessary to take. Now  coming back to the narration of what happened  when  he was  produced  in  Court it is apparent from  the  order  of Khosla,  J. who after setting out the purport of the  report of  his reader Gupta and after perusing the affidavit  filed by the two 418 Appellant  Police  Officers says that the detenu  wanted  to make a statement and was accordingly examined.  This is what the learned Judge has stated :               "Reading of the statement made by the,  detenu               together with the allegations projected in the               instant petition supported by the averments in               the  accompanying  affidavits and  the  report               submitted by Shri Gupta point un-mistakenly to                             the  contention  of the  learned  coun sel  that               detenu  had  been taken into  custody  by  the               Karnal local police on 5th of May 1968, passed               on  to the C.I.A. staff for investigation  and               interrogation   and  was  maltreated  by   the               respondents.   His arrest had  surreptitiously               been sworn to have taken place on 10th of  May               1968.  The affidavits sworn by the Respondents

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

             of  course denied all accusations had  it  was               maintained  that the detenu was called in,  on               10th of May 1968 and duly arrested.  He had on               his  person two old injuries that were  noted.               The allegations that some third degree methods               had  been  employed to illicit  confession  or               information    were    equally    emphatically               traversed.   Upon  hearing  counsel  at   some               length  and examining the material  placed  on               the record with due care I have no  hesitation               in finding that the detenu had been taken into               custody  on some date before the 10th  of  May               and   tortured   by  the   Respondents.    The               examination  carried out by the Chief  Medical               Officer,  Karnal  Hospital on the  morning  of               llth  May  showed that the detenu had  on  his               person injuries more than two.  The detenu was               in Court and I found him suffering  grievously               from  the after effects cumulatively of  those               injuries.  His version of torture administered               by the Respondents at diverse occasions  stood               materially  corroborated.   I also  find  that               though  the  confinement  of  the  detenu  was               illegal  till  10th  of May  1968,  he  is  at               present  in proper judicial custody.  He  must               thus  be remitted to the same custody.  He  is               accordingly  directed to be taken back to  the               Hospital  Kamal and to await further order  of               the learned Magistrate.               The Report submitted by Shri Gupta, Officer of               this  Court  discloses in no  uncertain  terms               that  Respondent No. 2 at least  showed  scant               respect for the orders of this Court and  when               asked to show the papers relating to the  case               adopted evasive attitude and also by  sneaking               away subsequently completed police papers               419               spuriously.   I cannot but abhor such  conduct               and disapprove of the mentality.               otherwise  too, I have no doubt whatever  that               the  affidavits  sworn by the  Respondents  in               this Court did not represent the true state of               affairs calculated falsehood had been imported               in material particulars.               For these and other illegalities committed  by               the  Respondents,  the detenu is left  to  his               remedies at law". After  making these observations the learned Judge  rejected the  petition  for  interim bail as he had  no  occasion  to examine  the merits of accusations laid against him as  also because  a  theft of large sums of money was  involved.   He however  left  it  open to the Magistrate  to  consider  the question  of bail as and when suitably moved by the  accused in that behalf. The learned Advocate Shri Sachthey has strenuously contended that these remarks are unjustified and besides impeding  the investigatory process which the Police as a matter of  their duty have to undertake, it effects the career of the  Police officers  concerned.  He also contends that it is  not  true that  the accused was arrested on the 5th May 68 or  an  any date prior to 10th and the remarks that they were in illegal custody and were brutally ill treated were also  unjustified in  that  they had been arrived at without  any  opportunity being given to the Appellant officers or without holding any enquiry   thereon.   We  are  unable  to  appreciate   these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

contentions.  In a Habeas Corpus Petition where  allegations are  made  that  a citizen of this  country  is  in  illegal custody it is the duty of the Court to safeguard the freedom of  the  citizen  which has been guaranteed to  him  by  our Constitution  and to immediately take such action  as  would ensure   that  no  person  however  high  or  low  acts   in contravention  of the law or in a high-handed, arbitrary  or illegal manner.  While no doubt it is the duty of the  Court to  safeguard  against  any encroachments on  the  life  and liberty  of individuals, at the same time we recognise  that the  authorities  who have the responsibility  to  discharge their functions vested in them under the law of the  country should   lot   be  impeded  or  interfered   with,   without justification.   In furtherance of this duty the High  Court passed the orders which in the circumstances of the case was fully  justified.   There was some comment  on  the  learned Judge  directing  his reader to contact  the  petitioner  to trace  out the accused and also on the oral instructions  as appeared  from the report to have been given by the  learned Judge to take the assistance of Narinder Singh an  Assistant in  the  Criminal Branch because he had been going  on  such raids  previously  as  indicating that the  High  Court  was directing  such raids previously.  We are not in a  position to say whether 420 this  comment  is  justified  because  all  the  information necessary is not available to us, as such we do not wish  to draw  any  inference  on this aspect of the  case.   If  the procedure  was objected to in the High Court as it has  been done before us it would have itself ascertained what was the basis  for  the reader’s statement that Narinder  Singh  was being  sent previously on such raids.  We do not  personally think that such raids are conducted but if in any particular case where there is urgency there is every justification for the procedure-followed by the High Court to be adopted.   In any  case ordinarily, Courts are not powerless as  they  can have  recourse to the provisions of the  Criminal  Procedure Code  which  provides  for directions  being  given  to  the Magistrates  to  deal  with such matters  by  conducting  an enquiry and making a report to the Court. On  the question whether the several remarks of the  learned Judge  are justified or not we may refer in this  connection to  the  observations of S. K. Das, J. in State of  U.P.  v. Mohammad Naim(1) as to the matters which have to be kept  in view  in considering whether the remarks made  in  judgments against  authorities whose conduct comes into  consideration before  Courts  of law in cases to be decided  by  them  are disparaging.   These  are  : (a)  whether  the  party  whose conduct  is  in  question is before the  Court  or  has  any opportunity of explaining or defending himself, (b)  whether there  is  evidence  on  record  bearing  on  that   conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary  for the  decision of the case, as an integral part  thereof,  to animadvert  on  that conduct.  It has also  been  recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should  not  normally depart from sobriety,  moderation  and reserve. What we must now see is, keeping in mind the above  criteria whether the remarks made by Khosla, J. are unjustified.  The first  of these which are assailed concerns the validity  of the  finding that the accused was arrested earlier than  the 10th  of May ’68 and that he was tortured.  We have  pursued the  statement  of  the arrested  person  given  before  the learned Judge and it appears therefrom that none other  than the Advocate General of the State had cross-examined him  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

respect of the allegations made by him against the appellant Police officers.  The detenu stated that on 5-5-68 ASI Dayal Chand accompanied by a foot constable in plain clothes  came to  his house at about 5 p.m. and took him to the CIA  staff situated  in  Model  Town  Karnal.   The  said  Dayal  Chand Respondent  2  was present in Court.  He further  says  that Jage  Ram was not present in the CIA office when he  reached there  at  about  9 p.m. that he was  questioned  about  the missing cash box and on his showing ignorance was kept under guard (1)  [1964] (2) S.C.R. 363, 374. 421 who  was changing every 3 hours.  Ms hands were  raised  out and  legs  stretched out.  The  Second  Respondent  remained with,  him till about 12 mid night.  At about 6 a.m. he  was taken  to  another room and was made to stand  in  the  said posture.   On 6.5.68 at about 10 p.m. both  Respondent  Jage Ram   and  Dayal  Chand  came.  to  that  room   and   again interrogated him about the theft.  He pleaded innocence  and denied that they interrogate other colleagues serving in the Post  office.  Thereafter he described the. manner in  which he was tortured on the several days and states what happened on the 10th May 68 when Sadhu Ram Gupta, Narinder Singh  and his father and brother-in-law Ravinder Mehta came to him and what  he  had  told  them.   It  appears  from  the   cross- examination  of  the learned Advocate General  that  he  was questioned about the theft and later it was put to him  that he. was absent between 5th to 10th from Karnal and  remained at  Chandigarh to get some recommendations for  getting  the course  of investigations changed, which suggestion  however was denied.  He was further asked whether he did not  appear before Respondent 2 on 10th at 1 1 a.m. on his own volition, which suggestion was also denied.  He denied that there  was any  search of his person effected or any memo prepared  and also  denied that he had been giving false version of  being tortured  with a view to escape the liability of the  theft. It was also put to him that before presenting himself before ASI  Dayal Chand on 10-5-68 he’ had made  arrangements  with the help of his relatives in filing a Habeas Corpus petition so  that he would secure release, which In  suggestion  also was  described by the accused as entirely false and  untrue. This latter suggestion of the learned Advocate General would answer the contention of the learned Advocate before us that it  is only after the accused was arrested at 12.30 p.m.  on the  10th  May  at  Karnal that the Petition  was  filed  at Chandigarh,  which  is  said  to  be  60  miles  away.  This contention would appear  to  be also not tenable because  of the  distance and time gap which will not make  it  possible for a petition to be filed before the Court closed. That the petition was filed much earlier on the  other    hand     is apparent from the report of the Court Reader who  said    he left  Chandigarh by bus at 4.30 p.m. which he could only  do if  the order was passed much earlier to enable him  to  get copies  and  make arrangements for him to travel by  bus  at 4.30      p.m.      On  the question whether the remarks that  accused  was injured  are  justified, we have also  pursued  the  medical report of the Chief Medical Officer dated 11-5-68 from which it  is evident that he had found 6 injuries on  the  accused and one of them was such that he advised X-Ray though  later it was found that there was no fracture. The nature of these injuries as well as the condition of the accused at the time when he was produced before the 422

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

learned Judge fully justify the conclusions that the accused when   produced  before  the  Court  was  found   "suffering grievously  from  the after effects  cumulatively  of  those injuries". In our view there is no warrant for the submission that  the Appellants were not given an opportunity to explain nor that no  enquiry  was  made  against  them  in  respect  of   the allegations  made in the petition or by the accused.  We  do not  know what other enquiry could be made.  The  appellants had opportunity of filing their affidavits and to give their version  which they have done in ,great detail, which  shows that  they knew what the allegations against them were.   If they wanted to produce any other person in support of  their stand that the accused was only arrested on the 10th and not on  the 5th or that the injuries found on the  accused  were old  and  were not fresh they could have done so.   They  do ,not  deny  that  the Chief  Medical  Officer  examined  the accused nor is it possible for them to say how the  injuries found  on  the  accused some of which were  fresh  could  be caused.   They  were certainly not old injuries  nor  is  it their case that when the accused was arrested on the 10th he was  found  to be suffering from swollen  feet  or  injuries which  were fresh.  None of the remarks to  which  exception has   been  taken,  in  our  view  could  be  described   as unwarranted,  unnecessary or irrelevant or can be  characte- rised as generalisation or of a sweeping nature.  There  is, therefore  no ground for granting the Prayer  for  expunging any of the remarks in the order of the High Court.  In  this view the Appeal is dismissed. K.B.N.                   Appeal dismissed. 423