Under Article 32 of the Constitution S. Sohal and M. C. Dhingra for the Petitioner.
1265 The Petitioner in the year 1965, when he was 25 years old was involved in a gambling case by the police and to mould him a permanent stock witness and lest he should be militant to defy them.
Due to close association with Police and their companynivance and indulgence, the petitioner thrived.
Despite his hesitation and unwillingness he was forced to become a permanent pawn of the police.
These twin problems of disturbing import, thrown up by this bizarre case, deserve serious examination.
The police methodology, with sinister potential to human liberty described by the petitioner, if true, deserves strong disapproval and companystitutional companynter action by this Court.
He was persuaded to be their perpetual stooge and stock witness.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
These carts used to be parked by the petitioner on the road side due to the indulgence of the police.
This is how, the petitioner landed himself in the web of the police he had numberalternative than to be like that as his livelihood was dependent upon the mercy and indulgence of the police.
M. Abdul Khader, N. Nettar and M. N. Shroff for the Respondents.
In this process, the petitioner became a prey and pawn in the hands of the police.
Is freedom of movement unreasonably fettered if policemen are given power of externment for public peace?
3050 of 1980.
He was in his teens when he started his avocation and companytinued for a very long time.
Thus, he acquired an alias i.e. Prem Chand Paniwala.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. Who will police the police ?
