Summary
The Abducted Persons (Recovery and Restoration) Act (Act LXV of 1949) does Dot infringe art. 14, art. 16, art. 19 (1) (d), (e) and (g), art. 21 or art. 22 of the Constitution and is not unconstitutional on the ground that it,contravenes any of these provisions.
The physical restraint Put upon an abducted person in the process of recovering and, taking that person into custody without any allegation or accusation of any actual or suspected or apprehended commission by that person of any offence of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature or of any act prejudicial to the State or the public interest, and delivery of that person to the custody of the officer in charge of the nearest camp under s. 4 of the Abducted Persons (Recovery and Restoration) Act (LXV of 1949) is not arrest and detention within the meaning of art. 22 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. The said Act does not therefore infringe the fundamental right guaranteed by art. 22 of the Constitution.255 The fundamental right conferred by art. 22 gives protection ,against such arrests as are effected otherwise than under a warrant issued by a Court on the allegation or accusation that the arrested person has, or is suspected to have,. committed, or is about or likely to commit, an act of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature or some activity prejudicial to the public or the State interest. There is indication in the language of art. 22 (1) and (2) that it was designed to give protection against the act of the exe- cutive or other non-judicial authority.The Blitz Case (Petition No. 75 of 1952) explained.Muslim abducted persons constitute a well-defined class for the purpose of legislation and the fact that the Act is extended only to the several States mentioned in s. 1 (2) of the Act does not make any difference, for a classification may well be made on a geographical basis. The Act does not therefore contravene art. 14 of the Constitution.If the language of an article is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, then the duty of the Court is to adopt that meaning irrespective of the inconvenience that such a construction may produce. If, however, two constructions are possible then the Court must adopt that which will ensure smooth and harmonious working of the Constitution and, eschew, the other which will lead to absurdity or give rise to practical inconvenience or make well established provisions of existing law nugatory.See the full content of this document
Extract
The State Of Punjab VS. Ajaib Singh And Another
PETITIONER: THE STATE OF PUNJAB Vs.RESPONDENT: AJAIB SINGH AND ANOTHERDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/11/1952BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJANBENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJANSASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)MUKHERJEA, B.K.BOSE, VIVIANBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.CITATION: 1953 AIR 10 1953 SCR 254CITATOR INFO : R 1954 SC 297 (11)R 1955 SC 191 (7)F 1955 SC 334 (15)R 1956 SC 20 (6)R 1957 SC 688 (8,10)D 1957 SC 927 (9)R 1962 SC1006 (74)D 1962 SC1506 (20)MV 1966 SC1910 (15,20,32)RF 1971 SC 337 (7)RF 1973 SC1461 (543)R 1974 SC 849 (16)RF 1974 SC1389 (255)D 1992 SC1858 (22)ACT: Abducted Persons (Recovery and Restoration) Act (LXV of 1949) ss. 4, 6, 7-Constitution of India, Arts. 14,15,19 (1) (d), (e), (g), 21, 22-Low authorising police officers to take abducted persons into custody and deliver such persons to officer in charge of camp Constitutional validity-"Arrest and detention", meaning of-Scope of Art. 22-Construction of statutes.JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Ap. peal No. 82 of 1952. Appeal under art. 132 (1) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated June 10, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla (Bbandari and Khosla JJ.) in Criminal Writ No. 144 of 1951.M. C. Setalvad (Attorney-General for India) and C. K. Daphtary (Solicitor- Genera I for India) (B. Gana- pathy, with them) for the appellant.J. B. Dadachanji (amicus curice) for respondent No. 1.1952. November 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered byDAS J.-This appeal arises out of a habeas corpus petition Bled by one Ajaib Singh in the High Court of Punjab for the production and release of one Musammat Sardaran alias Mukhtiar Kaur, a girl of about 12 years of age.256 The material facts leading...
See the full content of this document