DAYA SHANKER YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-1997-5-194
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 08,1997

DAYA SHANKER YADAV Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, LUCKNOW Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Binod Kumar Roy, N.S.Gupta - (1.) THE petitioner prays to quash the notice dated 28.4.1997, issued under Section 216, I.P.C. by Iltafar Husain, Station Officer, Police Station, Makanpur, District Firozabad, intimating him that he has been informed through confidential sources that Mukesh Yadav, Son of Dalvir Yadav, resident of Mahabir Nagar, Police Station South Firozabad Nagar, District Firozabad is a notorious criminal who visits him and get shelter, as a result of which, there is an apprehension of disorder in the law and order situation within the territorial Jurisdiction of the aforementioned police station, apart from creation of terror in the regional public and thereby his act aforementioned comes within the category of crime and thereby he should restrain himself from such activities, failing which action in accordance with law against him will be taken.
(2.) MR. Tej Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, made a very short contention before us that Section 216, I.P.C. does not vest any jurisdiction in the Thanadhyaksha to give such notice, and thereby it is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed for this reason alone. Learned A. G. A. Sri Jagdish Tewari, after some submission, very fairly conceded that Section 216, I.P.C. does not vest Thanadhyaksha such jurisdiction, but this notice should be construed to be merely informative in nature as it purports to give well in advance informations, so that the petitioner could restrain himself from activities mentioned therein. Section 216 of the I.P.C. reads thus : "216. Harbouring offender who had escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered.-Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody, j or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours or conceals, that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the manner following, that is to say, (if a capital offence) if the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall be liable to fine ; (if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment) if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine ; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and not to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one- fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for such offence, or with fine, or with both. "Offence" in this section includes also any act or omission of which a person is alleged to have been guilty out of India, which, if he had been guilty of it in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India, and every such act or omission shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in India. Exception.-The provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the person to be apprehended." Section 216A of the Code talks of imposition of penalty for harbouring robbers or dacoits.
(3.) A perusal of the aforementioned provisions of the Indian Penal Code do not contemplate issuance of any notice like the instant one. For the aforementioned reason, we hold that issuance of such notice was without jurisdiction and thereby nullity. It is, accordingly, quashed. This writ petition is allowed, but without cost. Let a writ of certiorari be issue accordingly.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.