GARGULA CHANDRA SHEKHAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are four in number, are Gold and Silver Merchants. They are carrying on their business of gold and silver under proper and valid licences obtained from the authorities concerned in Kamareddy of Nizamabad District. While so, it is their case that the respondents-police authorities are interfering with their lawful business and summoning them to the police station on the alleged ground that the petitioners are indulging in purchase of stolen property. The petitioners state that on the representation made by the Gold and Silver Merchants Association about police excesses and harassment of gold merchants and goldsmiths, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in consultation with the Police Director and Inspector General, to protect the interests of the gold and silver merchants and goldsmiths, issued orders in Memorandum No.3341/Police-B/85-86, dated 08.10.1985, prescribing the procedure to be followed in dealing with theft and recovery of gold and silver merchants. But the respondents-police authorities, ignoring the orders issued by the Government in the aforementioned Memorandum, are arresting the petitioners without there being any complaint and without registering any F.I.R. Hence, they filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents and their subordinates not to harass the petitioners and prolecl their fundamental and legal rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are doing business in gold and silver under proper and valid licences obtained from the authorities concerned, but the action of the respondents-police authorities in harassing the petitioners by calling them to police stations on the alleged ground that they indulged in purchase of stolen property, without there being any complaint and without registering any F.I.R. and without following the orders issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memorandum No. 3341/Police-B/85-86, dated 08,10.1985, is illegal and arbitrary and violative of the fundamental and legal rights of the petitioner guaranteed by the Constitution of India. They thus prayed for appropriate directions. Respondent No.1-Sub-Inspector of Police and respondent No.3-Director General of Police, filed separate counters denying the allegations of the petitioners. Reiterating the counter averments, the learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that based on a report lodged by one Gampa Chakrapani on 10.12.2003 that his shop was ransacked by unknown offenders, a case in Cr. No.258 of 2003 on the file of Kamareddy Police Station, for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, it came to light that petitioner No.1 and four others were involved in the crime. Petitioner No. 1 and the other were arrested on 09.01.2004, and after recording their confessional statements and after preparing the recovery panchanama, the accused were produced before the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, who directed them to be produced before the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Banswada on 12,01.2004. Accordingly, they produced the accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Banswada, and on that day petitioner No.1, who is shown as accused No.3 in the crime, was granted bail, while others were remanded in judicial custody. He submitted that the police filed charge-sheet, and the case is numbered as C.C. No. 19 of 2004, which is pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy. He submitted that the respondents are implementing the Memorandum No. 3341/Police-B/85-86, dated 08.10.1985, strictly, and contended that petitioner No.l never complained about any sort of ill-treatment by the police before the Magistrate, but have concocted the story for the purpose of the writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". Article 22 guarantees protection against arrest and detention in certain cases and declares that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds of such arrest and he shall not be denied the right to consult and defend himself by a legal practitioner of his choice. Clause (2) of Article 22 directs that the person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of 24 hours of such arrest, execluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the magistrate. Clause (3) of Article 22 lays down that a person accused of an offence shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. These are the constitutional safeguards provided to a person with a view to protect his personal liberty against any unjustified assault by the State. Likewise, there are certain provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Sections 41, 45, 46, 50, 53, 54, 56, 58 and 176, providing for the method and manner of arrest and affording procedural safeguards to a person arrested by the police.