Delhi High Court
Moinuddin vs State & Ors. on 27 October, 2009
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.10.2009
+ W.P.(C) 6046/2008
MOINUDDIN ..... Petitioner
- versus-
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Vijay Aggarwal and Mr Rakesh Mukhija,
Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr Ehtesham Hashmi for Mr Saleem Ahmed,
Advocate for State
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. When this matter was taken up for hearing on the first occasion,
i.e. on 20.08.2008, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he
does not press the challenge to the vires of Section 70 of the Delhi
Police Act. He, however, prayed for framing of proper guidelines
with regard to dealing with matters under Sections 107/151 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and for strict compliance with the
same. We find that this aspect of the matter has been adequately
addressed by the Standing Order no. 189/2008 issued by the
Commissioner of Police, Delhi, a copy whereof is at pages 175 to 178
of the paper book. The relevant portions of the said Standing Order
are as under:-
"XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Since these provisions relate to the liberty to a
human being, the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) is
under obligation to hold an inquiry to satisfy himself
regarding the existence of material justifying action
under this section. Various Courts have issued guidelines
regarding the exercise of powers under the above
mentioned action. The Hon'ble High Court of Madhya
Pradesh (Indore Bench) in Arursingh V. State of M.P.
1984 CRL.L.J. 1616 has given the following directions to
be followed by all the Magistrates while dealing with
cases under section 107/116/151 Cr.P.C. The above
mentioned case has been endorsed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in Crl. Ref. No. 1/2007 - Court on its own
motion Vs State and Ors.
(A) The Magistrate should stress upon the recording of
statements of the investigating officer/witnesses before
initiating any proceedings u/s 107/116/151 Cr.P.C.
(B) The Magistrate should not order furnishing of
surety in the absence of statements of IO/witnesses.
(C) The Magistrate should not send the detenu to jail
for failure to furnish surety as directed by him, in case
statements of IO/witnesses have not been recorded.
(D) The Magistrate should not sign the order in a
mechanical manner on a cyclostyled paper but it should
be well reasoned and detailed one.
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
All the police officers while dealing with cases
U/S 107/151 Cr.P.C. should keep in the mind the above
mentioned guidelines/directions mentioned above before
initiating any action. They must have the prior
concurrence from the concerned ACsP I/C subdivisions
before effecting any arrest U/S 151 Cr.P.C. This must be
meticulously observed. The ACsP should not give their
approval in mechanical manner but must act strictly as
per the law/directions given by various courts to ensure
that there is no misuse of these provisions of the law.
The SEMs must realise the onerous responsibility they
carry and act in a fair and transparent manner in
accordance with guidelines laid down by the courts and
summarized in this S.O."
2. From the above, it is clear that the directions which have been
issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and which have been
endorsed by this court in the case of Court on its own motion Vs The
State and Ors., (Crl. Ref. No. 1/2007) have been reiterated in the
Standing Order. Since those directions of the Courts have already
been incorporated in the Standing Order itself, we need not issue any
further directions. The grievances of the petitioner are adequately
addressed by the Standing Order.
3. The writ petition stands disposed of.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
VEENA BIRBAL, J
OCTOBER 27, 2009
kks
