MADHU LIMAYE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas corpus.

(2.) THE petitioner is stated to be the Chairman of All India Socialist Party. The socialist Party (Punjab Branch) has lodged satyagraha against the rising food prices and the burden of oppressive taxation. It is alleged that the petitioner with a view to acquaint himself with the situation was on a round to different districts of punjab. On 7th January, 1959, according to programme, the petitioner came to hissar and while he was in the office of the local Socialist Party, Hissar, he was arrested at about 2-30 p. m. It is alleged that the petitioner was arrested without any warrant of arrest shown or having been informed about the cause of the arrest. The detention of the petitioner is claimed to be ultra vires of the constitution and otherwise illegal.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kajinder Sacher, was that the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India were violated, for no grounds of arrest had been given to the petitioner at the time of the arrest as envisaged by the said Article. Elaborating the point, the learned counsel submitted that if the arrest if under any warrant of arrest, the reading of the warrant which normally gives the grounds of the arrest is enough compliance, but in cases of cognizable offences where the arrest can be effceted without warrant it is imperative that the grounds of arrest are given to the petitioner before he is taken into custody. To appreciate the argument, it is necessary to set down the terms of article 22 (1) of the Constitution which reads-