Skip to main content

Power Of Police to Arrest Without Warrant

 Power Of Police to Arrest Without Warrant

By Shagun Mahendroo


Police have broad authority to arrest in certain cases under Section 41, even if there is no order or warrant from a Magistrate. It's crucial to first distinguish between what counts as cognizable and non-cognizable offences. The first schedule of the CrPC addresses this issue, stating that significant offences fall into the cognizable category, with seriousness assessed by the sentence prescribed in relation to the same.

Offenses punishable for more than three years are normally cognizable, while less serious offences punishable for less than three years are generally non cognizable, with a few exceptions.

The following are examples of arrests that can be made without a warrant:

S. 41(1)(a): Cognizance offence committed in front of law enforcement.

S. 41(1)(b): When there is a widespread, either reliable complaint or information, or some reasonable suspicion, of an offence of cognizable nature punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years, and the following two conditions are met, police are authorised to make an arrest without a warrant:

1)There is grounds to believe that the person has committed the crime based on this evidence.

2) And that arrest is necessary for either securing his court appearance, or for proper investigation, or for preventing him from committing any further crimes, or for preventing him from tampering with or destroying evidence, or for preventing him from making threats, inducement, or promise in order to dissuade a person from disclosing the facts he knows about the case in front of the court or the police. The justifications must be written down.

S. 41(1) (ba): Arrest a person if there is credible information before the police about a cognizable offence that carries a sentence of seven years or more, and there is grounds to believe that he committed that crime.

S. 41(1)(c): Person who is deemed an offender by virtue of the Criminal Procedure Code or a State government order, and includes those who are held absconding, in hiding, or obstructing the execution of a warrant, among other things.

S. 41(1)(d): Person in possession of stolen property who is also reasonably suspected of committing an offence linked to the same item.

S. 41(1)(e): Person who obstructs a police officer in the performance of his duties or who has escaped or attempted to flee from legal custody.

S. 41(1)(f): Armed forces deserter suspected.

S. 41(1)(g): When credible info. or reasonable complaint or suspicion exists, against a person regarding an act committed outside India, and the same is offence in India in addition to him being liable for apprehension, from the lens of extradition or some other law.

S. 41(1)(h): State govt. is authorised by virtue of S. 356(5) to make rules when it comes to convicts released after serving sentence of 3 years or more, regarding change of his residence or absence from residence be notified. If that rule is breached, he is liable to be arrested w/o warrant.

S. 41(1)(i): On requisition received in either oral or written form, by another police officer with due mention of whom to arrest, grounds and offence in same.

S. 42 gives police the ability to arrest a person who is either accused of committing a non-cognizable offence, or who has done so in front of police, without a warrant, if the accused refuses to reveal his or her name and address, or if the information given is suspected to be fraudulent. This can be done in order to collect necessary information. The need for this is due to the fact that the police were previously unaware of the suspect's name and address1.

Preliminary Investigation

In some cases, the information does not plainly disclose a cognizable offence, necessitating an investigation to determine if the same is disclosed. The goal is to determine the veracity of the information, and whether it is required or not will depend on the circumstances of the case, and if it is, it will be entered into the General Diary.

This inquiry is prevalent and must be performed in a timely way in certain scenarios such as commercial/corruption issues, marriage conflicts, or if criminal prosecution was delayed.

When S.498A of the IPC is invoked by a complainant alleging the entire groom's family, certain requirements must be met, as set forth in cases such as Arnesh Kumar, before the accused family can be arrested simply because the police have the authority to do so.

The terminology employed in the above-mentioned provisions, such as reasonable and credible, vary depending on the facts and circumstances of the case2. These are linked to the attitude of the officer who, first and foremost, gets information, and this information should provide material of such sort that can be perceived as sufficient in order to make an independent judgement to be exercised for the goal of making an arrest 3.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more