They were liable to be arrested and detained.
P.C. relying on a numberification which will be reproduced shortly hereinafter.
P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay which was dismissed.
The gravamen of the charge is the failure on the part of the accused persons to produce them before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
At about 2 a.m. on 29.3.1986 they were put up in a police van and brought to Bhandup police station and placed in the lock up.
The learned Magistrate in the inquiry held under section 202 Cr.P.C.recorded the statement of companyplainant and one witness, took companynizance under Sections 220 and 342 IPC and Sections 147 and 148 of Bombay Police Act and directed the accused to be summoned.
The companyplaint also alleged the appellants having been mercilessly beaten while they were wrongfully companyfined at Chembur police station.
P.C. refused to release the companyplainant on bail though his sureties were present and the bail was offered.
On 28th March, 1986 at about 8.30 p.m. the respondent number1 who was a sub inspector attached to Chembur police station, along with other policemen, came to the residence of the appellants and forced the three appellants to accompany them to Chembur police station where they were put up in the lock up.
The appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.
Later on they were released on bail.
CR.P.O./78/9845/POL 3.
On 30.3.1986 the appellants were produced before the Holiday Magistrate at Bhoiwada Dadar who ordered them to be produced before the regular companyrt on 31.3.1986.
The appellants preferred a petition under Section 482 of Cr.
In exercise of the power companyferred by sub section 3 of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 II of 1974 , the Government of Maharashtra hereby directs that the provisions of sub section 2 of that Section shall apply to the following categories of the members of the force in the State charged with the maintenance of public order wherever they may be serving, namely All police officers as defined in the Bombay Police Act, 1951 Bom.
XXXVIII of 1951 .
The accused respondents appeared before the learned Magistrate and raised an objection to the maintainability of the companyplaint under Section 197 2 of Cr.
Cognizable and number bailable offences were registered against the appellants.
It is submitted by the learned companynsel for the appellants that in order to claim protection under the numberification it is necessary that the accused must be a police officer as defined in the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and must be charged with the maintenance of public order at the relevant time.
The companyplainants were in the custody of the police officers and at the police station.
On 16th July, 1986 the appellants filed a companyplaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 27th Court, Mulund, Bombay impleading two sub inspectors, two senior police inspectors and a police inspector attached with Chembur and Bhandup police stations companyplaining of offences under sections 220, 342 of IPC and 147 c d and 148 of Bombay Police Act, 1951.
XXII of 1951 , other than the Special or Additional Police Officers appointed under section 21 or 22 of that Act All Reserve Police Officers as defined in Bombay State Reserve Police Force Act, 1951 Bom.
The relevant numberification dated 2.6.1979 reads as under NOTIFICATION Home Department Mantralaya, Bombay 400 032 No.
The police registered offences punishable under Sections 142, 144, 147, 148, 365, 368, 324/149 IPC against the appellants and companymenced investigation.
C. Lahoti, J. LITTTTTTTJ One Faijuddin Jainuddin lodged a companyplaint against Rizwan Ahmed, Ramchandra Kasbe and Afzalkhan, the three appellants before us, companyplaining that the appellants and some other unknown persons had gathered dangerous weapons and abducted the companyplainant, Faijuddin Jainuddin and assaulted him.
