TIKAM CHAND KHATRI Vs. KAMALESWAR BORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 read with Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by Shri Tikam Chand Khatri, an Advocate of Tezpur, Darrang, Assam, now a detenu under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, shortly termed as "M.I.S.A."

(2.) HIS allegation, inter alia, is that while in such detention he forwarded a complaint petition to the Sub -Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Goalpara, dated January 13, 1976, through the Superintendent of District Jail, Goalpara on which no due and adequate actions were taken by the learned Magistrate. His allegation, inter alia, was that at the instance of the Opposite Party No. 1 he was arrested by the then Officer incharge of the Police Station, Tezpur, the O.P. No. 2 on 28.6.1975 at or about 6 A.M. and was detained until 1 P.M. He was served with an order of detention under the M.I.S.A., 1991 (as amended) and thereafter he was taken from the District Jail Tezpur and detained in Goalpara Jail and that the rest of the Opposite Parties are responsible for his detention and continued detention in jail. His case inter alia is that the detention was colourable exercise of power and as such the Opposite Parties have committed offences under Section 344 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, his order of detention made under the M. I. S. A. amounted to wrongful confinement for 10 or more days and that the Opposite Parties have committed the offence of abetment as contemplated under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner is that the Opposite Parties 1, 3, 4 and 5 abetted the Opposite Party No. 2, the police Officer in the act of commission of the offence under Section 344, Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, he requested the learned Magistrate in his complaint petition (1) that he should be produced before him;

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, as stated in the petition, the learned Magistrate on perusal of the complaint should have examined him and ought to have ordered the authorities concerned to set him free from "wrongful confinement". According to the petitioner, the trial Court did not comply with any of his requests or the provisions of the law.