NAZIR AHMAD Alias JEERA GUDDI vs The STATE

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner has been convicted under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced to death for the murder of Muhammad Sarwar, Foot Constable, on the 8th October 1966, at 6-30 p.m. In Ram Bazar, Baghbanpura.

2. As the assault took place in full public view and the com--plicity of the petitioner was abundantly proved by a number of eye-witnesses the learned counsel did not dispute the incident, but raised the legal issue that inasmuch as the deceased did not have a warrant for the arrest of the petitioner, the latter had the right to free himself from his wrongful custody. The application of section 302, P. P. C. Was on this premises disputed.

3. The petitioner was involved in two criminal cases at the time of the occurrence. Warrants for his arrest were received in the police Station, Baghbanpura, to which the deceased was attached and were returned to the Court concerned after futile efforts to find out his whereabouts. It so happened that the deceased accompanied by Channan Din (P. W. 18), a fellow constable, were on duty to keep a check on the bad characters of the area on the afternoon of the 8th October 1966. While patrolling. Ram Bazar in plain clothes when they saw the petitioner in the company of another person and directed him to accompany them to the Police Station. On the way the petitioner whipped out a knife and caused repeated injuries with it to the deceased who fell on the street and died on the spot instantaneously.

4. Under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Police Officer may arrest any person without a warrant who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. As mentioned above, two warrants for the arrest of the petitioner were received in the Police Station, Baghbanpura, which remained unnerved as the petitioner was not traceable. In view of this information it was within the authority of the deceas-- ed to arrest the petitioner. Indeed it was a duty under the Police Act. It was maintained by the learned counsel that section 54 was controlled by the provisions of section 56 which lays down the procedure when police officer deputes a subordinate to arrest without a warrant. The section applies when the S. H. O., or any police officer making an investigation under Chapter XIV requires any officer subordinate to him .To arrest without a warrant. He shall deliver to the subordinate officer an order in writing specifying the person to be arrested and the offence or the other cause for which the arrest is made. The officer making the arrest is required to notify to the person to be arrested the substance of the order and if so required shall show him the order.

5. The scope of sections 54 and 56 is, as seen, wholly different. While the authority to arrest under section 54 is limited to the conditions laid down in clauses first to ninthly, the power to arrest under section 56 without warrant is subject to the require--ment only of a written order by a Senior Police Officer specifying the offence or other cause for which arrest is to be made. As against these provisions section 54(i) clause first reproduced above requires that the person to be arrested is concerned in any cognizable 'offence or' against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received etc. Etc. The contention raised by the learned counsel that the petitioner had the right to free himself from the wrongful custody of the deceased has thus no substance in law. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.