NIRMALA KAMAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed that proceedings for punishing the respondent No.2 under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 be initiated against the Investigating Officer for not following the mandate of Sec. 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and more particularly, the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

(2.) Mr. Mohnot, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that contemnor (respondent No.2) had apprehended the petitioner without serving a notice under Sec. 41-A of the Code and thus, he is liable for punishment for contempt of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that true it is, that notice under Sec. 41-A of the Code was not served, but the same was not required by virtue of the provisions contained in Sec. 41(1)(b) of the Code as the Investigating Officer deemed it expedient to make an immediate arrest. He submitted that a notice under Sec. 41(1)(b) of the Code was very much served upon petitioner.