ISHWAR DASS MOOLRAJANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISHWAR Dass Moolrajani, petitioner herein, has approached this Court with the prayer that his custody be declared illegal and a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus be issued directing release of the petitioner forthwith.

(2.) AS per the facts stated in the writ petition the petitioner has been engaged in the trade of manufacture and sale of wrist watches `rochees' known for low priced watches to cater the need of masses who cannot afford costly watches. The Custom Authorities acting on the false information and frivolous insinuations propagated by the business rivals, initiated inquiry which culminated in arrest of petitioner on July 24, 2006.

(3.) IN origin the writ of Habeas Corpus, found in Edward I's reign, was merely a command by the court to some one to bring before itself person whose presence was necessary to some judicial proceeding. IN other words, it was originally intended not to get people out of prison, but to put them in it. Habeas Corpus was a prerogative writ issued by the King against his officers to compel them to exercise their functions properly. IN the form of HABEAS CORPUS AD SUBJICIENDUM (the form now commonly used) it came to be available, under certain conditions to private individuals. IN the seventeenth century members of the parliamentary opposition imprisoned by Command of the King availed themseleves of the writ to seek release. (1627) The Five Knights case, 3 St. Tr. J. Holdsworth, History of English Law Vol. VI PP. 32-37) and it is from this application that originated its construction importance as the classic British guarantee of personal liberty.