ANANTRAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous criminal case has been registered on an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is directed against order dated 7.1.2016 passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul, in Criminal Revision No.133/2015, whereby the order dated 17.8.2015, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Multai, in Criminal Case No.804/2015 directing Superintendent of Police Betul to take action against petitioner Head Constable Anantram Lodhi for his failure to comply with provisions of Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was affirmed.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this miscellaneous criminal case may briefly be stated thus: As per the first information report No.170/2015 registered at the instance of petitioner Head Constable Anantram Lodhi on 3.8.2015 in Police Station Bordehi, District Betul, on the basis of information received, he reached Hanuman Mandir near Raiway Station, Harniya and found that accused Omkar Sahu was brandishing an open knife on a public road and was terrorizing general public. The Head Constable asked the accused whether he had any license for possession of the knife. The accused replied in negative. Since, in the opinion of the Head Constable, an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was committed in his presence, the knife was seized from the possession of the accused. The curved blade of the knife was nine and half inches long and it was two inches at its widest. The accused was arrested and aforesaid first information report was recorded. The accused was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Multai, district Betul, on 3.8.2015. Learned Magistrate observed that the Head Constable had not complied with provisions of Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. and the directions given by Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2014 8 SCC 273; therefore, an explanation was called.

(3.) Petitioner Head Constable Anantram Lodhi submitted his explanation on 6.8.2015. In his explanation, the petitioner described the incident as recorded in the first information report and by way of explanation stated that where an offence has been committed in the presence of police, no permission of either the Court or higher officers of Police is required for effecting an arrest. In such a case, a check list is also not required to be prepared. The Head Constable further submitted that the Court remands accused to judicial custody only after the action taken by the police is exposited from the case diary. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class was not satisfied by the explanation given by the Head Constable; therefore, he directed the District Superintendent of Police, Betul, to take action as per law against the Head Constable and report the compliance to the Court.