Skip to content


Abdul Rashid Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in64Ind.Cas.141
AppellantAbdul Rashid
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredGhulam Jilani v. Emperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 109 - ostensible means of subsistence--dependence upon father--arrest under suspicious circumstances--wrong name and address given--unsatisfactory account. - - it seems to me that if a person, when arrested under suspicions circumstances, gives a name and address which are found to be wrong, he does not give a satisfactory account of himself, and proceedings taken against him under section 109 of the code of criminal procedure would be perfectly justified. 401. is clearly distinguishable. in that case the applicants had given a correct account of themselves and were found to be well-to-do and respectable residents of delhi......living from tuition.' on these facts the applicant has been bound over under section 109 of the code of criminal procedure.2. the learned advocate for the applicant strongly urges that the case does not come within the scope of section 109 criminal procedure code, under whatever other section it might fall- i agree with him so far that the mere fact that abdul rashid has no means of his own but is maintained by his father, who earns an honest living', would not make him 'a person who has no ostensible means of subsistence.' in this country there would unfortunately be found many a young man who is altogether out of employment and depends entirely on his father's resources, it would, be dangerous to hold that such men have no ostensible means of subsistence and should be bound over.3......
Judgment:

Sulaiman, J.

1. The applicant was arrested under most suspicious circumstances. At midnight three men were seen by two constables walking along a narrow lane in a mohalla not that of the applicant. On perceiving that their presence had been detected, they rushed out of the lane and went in different directions. The constables sounded their whistles and pursued the applicant. People arrived from the opposite direction and he was arrested. On being asked his name and address he gave a number of wrong names and addresses, and gave no less than four conflicting explanations of his presence there at that hour of the night. The evidence proved that Abdul Rashid had no independent means of income, but lived with his father who, in the words of the learned District Magistrate, 'is a respectable Julaha who earns his living from tuition.' On these facts the applicant has been bound over Under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The learned Advocate for the applicant strongly urges that the case does not come within the scope of Section 109 Criminal Procedure Code, under whatever other section it might fall- I agree with him so far that the mere fact that Abdul Rashid has no means of his own but is maintained by his father, who earns an honest living', would not make him 'a person who has no ostensible means of subsistence.' In this country there would unfortunately be found many a young man who is altogether out of employment and depends entirely on his father's resources, It would, be dangerous to hold that such men have no ostensible means of subsistence and should be bound over.

3. But I am of opinion that even assuming that on the findings the accused cannot be said to have been 'taking precautions to conceal his presence'--though I must say that the judgments of the Courts below incline me to hold that he was--there can be be no doubt that when arrested, he could not 'give a satisfactory account of himself' He gave wrong names and addresses and conflicting explanations of his presence there. He was. obviously trying to conceal his identity. It seems to me that if a person, when arrested under suspicions circumstances, gives a name and address which are found to be wrong, he does not give a satisfactory account of himself, and proceedings taken against him Under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be perfectly justified. The case of Ghulam Jilani v. Emperor 51 Ind. Cas. 161 : 17 A.L.J. 432 : 20 Cr. L.J. 401. is clearly distinguishable. In that case the applicants had given a correct account of themselves and were found to be well-to-do and respectable residents of Delhi. I reject the application.


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