Legal Reference Library

In R (on application of Hicks and others) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis-United Kingdom, four appellants were part of a larger group of claimants, but it was agreed before the Court of Appeal that their cases should be treated as test cases. They were arrested in separate incidents at various places in central London on the grounds that their arrest was reasonably believed by the arresting officers to be necessary to prevent an imminent breach of the peace. Administrative Court rejected the broad complaint that the police adopted an unlawful policy for the policing of the royal wedding. After close examination of the facts of the individual arrests, it also held that the arresting officers had good grounds to believe that the arrests were necessary in order to prevent the likelihood of an imminent breach of the peace. Claim that the police acted unlawfully as a matter of domestic law therefore failed. Court of Appeal also concluded that, Appellants were arrested and detain...

In Kishin S. Loungani Vs. Union Of India, the main question to be decided by the Kerala HC was  whether the provisions of Sections 154 to 157 and 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply in respect of the proceedings under the Customs Act, in view of Section 4(2) of the Cr.P.C. and whether in respect of offences under Sections 133 to 135 of the Customs Act registration of FIR is compulsory before the person concerned is arrested and produced before the Magistrate. It was held that Registration of FIR is not necessary before arresting a person under Section 104 of the Customs Act. Sections 154 to 157 and Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply to a case under the Customs Act, 1962. Article referred: http://taxguru.in/custom-duty/registration-fir-not-necessary-before-arresting-person-us-104-customs-act.html#sthash.LwoWw6bm.dpuf

The National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld an order of the state commission, which had ordered the arrest of officials of a real estate for failing to hand over flats or make refunds on time. In the instant case, in spite of the proclamation published against the director and general manager of the company under Section 82 CrPC, they did not appear before the state commission, and hence, were declared as proclaimed offenders.  The state commission then ordered their arrest, so as to take proceedings against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This order by the state commission was assailed before the national commission. The national commission observed that under the Consumer Protection Act, compliance of the order passed by the consumer fora is made by following procedure under Section 25 or Section 27 of the said Act. It is not for the judgment debtor to choose,which manner of execution is to be followed. It was the duty of t...

High Court of Delhi Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd v. Union Of India & Ors. MANU/DE/2284/2016 01.09.2016 Service Tax Power of arrest is to be used with great circumspection and not casually Present writ Petitions filed by two entities operating on-line platforms/web portals raise important questions involving powers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) of arrest, investigation and assessment of service tax under provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. In both writ petitions, applications were filed for interim directions to restrain DGCEI from taking any coercive steps against the entities and their officers. Scheme of provisions of Finance Act 1994 (FA), do not permit DGCEI or for that matter Service Tax Department (ST Department) to by-pass procedure as set out in Section 73A (3) and (4) of Act before going ahead with arrest of a person under Sections 90 and 91 of Act. Power of arrest is to be used with great circumspection and not casually. It...

The Supreme Court has said that a habeas corpus plea, relating to legality of arrest, detention or imprisonment of a person, has to be given “immediate attention” and steps should be taken to decide it forthwith. The apex court said this while asking the Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court to decide within four weeks the plea by a man, who is the working president of Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha and has been “detained” for allegedly issuing a press release containing inflammatory language against the Prophet. “We are sure that the high court shall be alive to the same and dispose of the habeas corpus writ petition within four weeks hence,” a bench of justice Dipak Misra and justice C Nagappan said. “When we say that it shall be disposed of within four weeks, it means that the matter shall be heard and the judgement shall be delivered within the said period,” the bench said. Petitioner Kamlesh Tiwari had approached the apex court seeking a direction to the authorities concern...

A Curative Bench, led by Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur, has upheld a 2014 Supreme Court verdict that men cannot be “automatically” arrested on dowry harassment complaints filed by their wives. The four-judge Bench found no fault with the verdict that the dowry harassment law had become a “menace”, more often used as “weapons rather than shields by disgruntled wives”. Justices Anil R. Dave, J.S. Khehar and P.C. Ghose were in the Bench. Days before his retirement in 2014, Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad led a Bench that lamented that courts were filled with mothers-in-law, sisters-in-law and fathers-in-law and husbands facing prosecution under Section 498 A (dowry harassment) of the Indian Penal Code. Dowry harassment is a cognisable and non-bailable offence. If guilty, a person faces up to three years' imprisonment and fine. Women’s rights groups were irked by the verdict, and the National Commission for Women sought a rare curative relief in the court. In his verdict...

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking a direction to the police to arrest the accused in a criminal case with an observation that court cannot coerce the police to arrest someone since it was the prerogative of the investigating officer concerned. Refusing to pass such a direction to Koodal Pudur police here in a cheating case, Justice P.N. Prakash said: “In the considered opinion of this Court, such a direction cannot be issued inasmuch as it is the discretion of the Investigating Officer to either arrest or not to arrest the accused.” He recalled that in 1994 itself, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, led by the then Chief Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, had said: “No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. “The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to ...