Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, three individuals (Yusuf Khan, Irfan Khan, and Sharif Khan), were already incarcerated and due for release when separate Istegashas led to the issuance and service of notices under Section 110(e) of the Criminal Procedure Code. They filed criminal writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking quashing of the Istegashas and compensation for what they contended was wrongful detention. The court called for the reply and record. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners expressed that they would be content if the Istegashas were set aside and only token compensation granted. The core legal issue centered on whether the notices satisfied the statutory prerequisites of Section 110(e), which requires that the authority be satisfied that the noticee habitually commits, attempts, or abets offences involving a breach of the peace. After perusing the Istegashas, the court found that even taking every allegation as true, the essential element of breach of peace was entirely absent. Consequently, the notices and the resulting detention were held to be without authority of law and therefore wrongful. On the question of compensation, the court noted that no personal malafides were attributed to the police officer concerned, who was acting in a magisterial capacity; nevertheless, the State was vicariously liable. The court quantified token compensation at Rs.10,000 for each petitioner. The State was directed to pay the amount by demand drafts payable at the ordinary residence of each petitioner within sixty days, with the Commissioner of Police, Amravati, responsible for compliance. The rule was made absolute, and the fee of the appointed counsel was fixed at Rs.1,500. Thus, the petitions were allowed, the impugned Istegashas were quashed, and compensation was awarded.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure – Preventive Detention – Section 110(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Requirement of Habitual Offences Involving Breach of Peace – The court examined the Istegashas and found that they did not disclose any breach of peace; thus, the notices issued under Section 110(e) were without authority of law and deserved to be quashed. The court set aside Istegasha Nos. 8, 9, and 10 of 2012 of Rajapeth Police Station, Amravati, and the consequent detention was held wrongful. (Paras 10-14) B) Constitutional Law – Compensation for Wrongful Detention – State Liability – When detention is wrongful, the State is liable to pay compensation; the court awarded token compensation of Rs.10,000 to each petitioner, payable by demand draft at their ordinary residence within 60 days, as the officer was acting in magisterial powers without personal malafides. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Istegashas and notices issued under Section 110(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were valid when they did not disclose any element of breach of peace, and whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation for wrongful detention.
Final Decision
Istegasha Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of 2012 of Rajapeth Police Station, Amravati and notices based thereon were quashed and set aside as without authority of law. The detention was held wrongful. Token compensation of Rs.10,000 per petitioner was ordered to be paid by the State via demand drafts sent to their ordinary residence within sixty days. The Commissioner of Police, Amravati, was directed to comply. The fee of the appointed advocate was fixed at Rs.1,500.
Law Points
- Under Section 110(e) CrPC
- the authority must be satisfied that the noticee habitually commits
- attempts
- or abets offences involving breach of peace
- if the Istegasha does not disclose any breach of peace
- the notice is issued without authority of law
- detention based on such notice is wrongful
- the State is liable to pay token compensation even in the absence of personal malafides against the officer acting in magisterial powers.
