Skip to content


Morampudi Narsayya Vs. Hyderabad State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1951CriLJ502
AppellantMorampudi Narsayya
RespondentHyderabad State
Excerpt:
.....grounds, which are available to the insured. if insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer and will be negation of the intention of the legislature and annihilate mandate of the provisions of sections 170 and 149 of the act. the insured can pursue appeal only after giving up the insurer as the appellant and not otherwise. in the instant case, the insurer has not withdrawn from party array but has remained prosecuting the appeal with the insured on the grounds which are available only to the insured. therefore, the joint appeal as filed by the insured and the insurer is not maintainable. section 166: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] claim for compensation accident due to mechanical defect in the vehicle ..........by an affidavit praying for the issue of writs of habeas corpus under article 226, const. ind. the grounds stated in the petn. are that 9 persons specified in the appln. have been arrested without proper legal authorisation. this appln. was admitted & a notice was issued to the govt. advocate on 14-3 1900. on 14 7-1950 when the petn. came up for bearing before a division bench, mr. mohammed mirza, the learned govt. advocate, on behalf of the govt., furnished only two copies of detention orders relating to sitaramaiah, & yenkayya, s/o appayya, but did not file any copy of detention orders regarding the other seven, & stated that he had no further instructions as to whether the detention orders have been served on these seven detenus. he further said that he was not aware whether grounds.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. On 28.2-1950, one Morampudi Narsayya filed an appln. accompanied by an affidavit praying for the issue of writs of habeas corpus under Article 226, Const. Ind. The grounds Stated in the petn. are that 9 persons specified in the appln. have been arrested without proper legal authorisation. This appln. was admitted & a notice was issued to the Govt. Advocate on 14-3 1900. On 14 7-1950 when the petn. came up for bearing before a Division Bench, Mr. Mohammed Mirza, the learned Govt. Advocate, on behalf of the Govt., furnished only two copies of detention orders relating to Sitaramaiah, & Yenkayya, s/o Appayya, but did not file any copy of detention orders regarding the other seven, & stated that he had no further instructions as to whether the detention orders have been served on these seven detenus. He further said that he was not aware whether grounds of detention were furnished to all these detenus. The Division Bench, not being satisfied with the statement of the Advocate, directed the production of &he; detenus. Today, in compliance with that order, six of the detenus viz. : 1. Karamanchi Sitaramayya, 2. Rayapati Venkayya, 3. Golamandla Narsayi, 4. Golamandla Ramayi, 5. Chintala Mukkayya & 6. Rajani Ramulu, have been produced before us from their respective custodies. We are informed that .detenu 5, Chintala Somayya (Mukkayya?) is dead, & detenus Chintala Narasayi & Chintala Potai have been released. On these facts, we have to determine whether the appln. for their release should be (pasted or not.

2. Under Article 22 of the Constitution

no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed as soon a; may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.

Under Clause (5) of the same Article , it has been enacted that

when an; person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon (is may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the surliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.

It is thus clear that under the Constitution a detenu is entitled at the earliest possible opportunity to know the ground a of his detention. Even under S 7, Preventive Detention Act, the grounds of detention have got to be furnished as early as possible to the persons so deprived of their liberties, The relevant Article & Section 7, Preventive Datention Act, therefore, abundantly make it clear that if there is any detention without furnishing of grounds to the person con. earned such detention is not lawful. Those who are responsible for ordering detention in order to justify such detention have to comply with the letter as well as with the spirit of the Constitution & the Act. Moreover, if such a detention is challenged & the writ of habeas corpus is prayed for, the authorities concerned have to satisfy the Cts. entrusted with the exercise of these powers that the persons complaining of improper detention are under lawful custody. In this appln,, no documents have been filed by the Govt. showing service of the grounds of detention. Even today, we asked the Advocate. General if be was in a position to state whether the grounds of detention have been furnished to the detenus. He stated (what had been already stated on 14-7 1850) that he has no further instructions in the matter. In view of that state-onent & the fact that the appln. before the H. C. was made sometime in February, & we are hearing it today, about 5 months later, we are not inclined to adjourn the case any further or allow the detenus to be kept in custody any longer. We therefore, order that 1. Karamanchi Sitaramayya, s/o Buchayya, 2. Rayapati Venkayya, s/o Appayya, 3. Golamandla Narsayi s/o Venkayi, 4. Golamandla Ramayi s/o Venkayi, 5. Ohintala Mukkayya, s/o Narasayi, & 6. Rajani Ramulu, produced before us today be released from custody forthwith.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //