Skip to main content

Section 44 CRPC

 SECTION 44 CRPC

By P.Hema


Arrest by Magistrate.

(1) When any offence is committed in the presence of a Magistrate, whether

Executive or Judicial, within his local jurisdiction, he may himself arrest or order

any person to arrest the offender, and may thereupon, subject to the provisions

herein contained as to bail, commit the offender to custody.

(2) Any Magistrate, whether Executive or Judicial, may at any time arrest or direct

the arrest, in his presence, within his local jurisdiction, of any person for whose

arrest he is competent at the time and in the circumstances to issue a warrant.

There is only one provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under which

a Magistrate himself can arrest an accused. That provision is contained in Section

44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Any Magistrate, whether Judicial or Executive, may himself arrest or order any

person to arrest the offender, who has committed an offence in presence of such

Magistrate within his local jurisdiction. He may also issue a warrant of arrest of

such offender. A Magistrate arresting a person under Section 44 (1) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not a 'Court'. Therefore, the detention of the arrested

person beyond 24 hours would be illegal unless a remand order to custody is

obtained under Section 167 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by producing

him before another Magistrate.

Magistrate under Section 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 a Judicial /

Executive Magistrate either himself arrest or ask any other person to arrest anyone

committing any offence in his presence.

In arresting a person under Section 44 a Magistrate does not take cognizance of the

case. The provision neither deals with taking of cognizance nor with conducting of

inquiry or trial after taking of cognizance. Directorate of Enforcement Vs Deepak

Mahajan, AIR 1994 SC 1775.

Under Section 44 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also he can arrest a

person for whose arrest he is competent to issue a warrant.


Section 44 is the only section in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which

authorizes a Magistrate to arrest a person. This section consists of two sub-

sections. Under sub-section (1) a Magistrate can arrest a person if any offence is

committed in his presence. Under sub-section (2) he can arrest a person for whose

arrest he is competent to issue a warrant.

Under Section 44 Cr. P. C apart from the Police, Magistrate is given power to

arrest a person and when an accused appears before the Magistrate or surrenders

voluntarily, Magistrate is competent to take that accused into custody.

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