Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1970738/
Timestamp: 2017-11-19 04:49:14
Document Index: 34715969

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 22', 'art. 14', 'art. 16', 'art. 19', 'art. 21', 'art. 22', 'art. 22', 'art. 22', 'art.\t  22', 'art. 22', 'art. 14', 'art. 132']

The State Of Punjab vs Ajaib Singh And Another on 10 November, 1952
Article 22(1) in The Constitution Of India 1949
Article 2 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Article 4 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Citedby 86 docs - [View All]
Homi D. Mistry vs Shree Nafisul Hussan on 16 November, 1956
Hanuman Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 14 August, 1996
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shobharam And Ors on 22 April, 1966
Peoples Union For Human Rights ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 March, 1991
Anwar vs The State Of J. & K on 7 July, 1970
arrest of person without warrant
procedure for arrest
article 19 1 a filter: indian law
who is legal practitioner
Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 10, 1953 SCR 254
Author: S R Das
Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H.
AJAIB SINGH AND ANOTHER
1953 AIR   10		  1953 SCR  254
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)
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
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
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.
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 by DAS 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.
The material	facts	leading up to the filing of that petition may be shortly stated as follows. On	the report made by one Major Babu Singh, Officer Commanding No. 2 Field Company, S. M. Faridkot, in his letter dated February	17, 1951, that the petitioner Ajaib Singh had three abducted persons	in his possession,	the recovery	police	of Ferozepore, on June 22, 1951, raided his house	in village Shersingwalla and took the girl Musammat Sardaran	into custody	and delivered her to the custody of the Officer in charge of the Muslim Transit Camp at Ferozepore from whence she was later transferred to and lodged in the Recovered Muslim Women's Camp in Jullundur City.
A Sub-Inspector of Police named Nibar Dutt	Sharma	was deputed by the Superintendent of Police, Recovery, Jullundur to make certain enquiries as to the facts of the case.	The Sub-Inspector as a result of his enquiry made a report on October 5, 1951 to the effect, inter, that the girl had been abducted by the petitioner during the riots of 1947. On November 5, 1951, the petitioner	filed	the habeas corpus petition and obtained an interim order that the	girl should	not be removed from Jullundur until the disposal of the petition.	The case of the girl was then enquired	into by two Deputy Superintendents of Police, one from India	and one from Pakistan who, after taking into consideration	the report	of the Sub-Inspector and the statements made before them by the girl, her mother who appeared before them while the enquiry was in progress, and Babu alias Ghulam Rasul the brother	of Wazir deceased who was said to be the father of the girl and other materials, came to the conclusion, inter alia, that the girl was a Muslim abducted during the riots of 1947 and was, therefore, an abducted person as defined in section	2(a) (1) of the Abducted Persons (Recovery	and Restoration) Act LXV	of 1949. By their report made on November 17, 1951, they recommended that she should be	sent to Pakistan for restoration to her next of kin but in	view of the interim order of the High Court appended a note to the effect that she 257 should	not be sent to Pakistan till the final	decision of the High Court.
The matter then came before a Tribunal said to have been constituted under section 6 of the Act. That Tribunal consisted of two Superintendents of Police, one from India and the other from Pakistan. The Tribunal on the same	day, i.e., November 17, 1951, gave its decision agreeing with the findings and	recommendation of	the two Deputy Superintendents of Police and directed that the girl should be sent to Pakistan and restored to her next of kin there. The habeas corpus petition came up for hearing before Bhandari and Khosla JJ. on November 26, 1951, but in view of the several questions of farreaching importance raised in this and other similar applications,	the learned Judges referred the following questions to a Full Bench :
1. Is	Central	Act No. LXV	of 1949 ultra	vires	the Constitution because its provisions with regard to	the detention in refugee	camps of persons living in India violate	the rights conferred upon Indian citizens under article 19 of the Constitution ?
2.	Is this Act ultra vires the Constitution because in terms it violates the provisions of article 22 of	the Constitution ?
3.	Is the Tribunal constituted under section 6 of the Act a	Tribunal subject to the general supervision of	the High Court by virtue of article 227 of the Constitution ? At the same time the learned Judges made it clear that the Full Bench would not be obliged to confine itself within the narrow limits of the phraseology of the said questions.	On the next day the learned Judges made an order that the	girl be released on bail	on furnishing	security to	the satisfaction of the Registrar in a sum of Rs. 5,000 with one surety.	It is not clear from the	record	whether	the security was actually furnished.
The matter eventually came	up before a	Full Bench consisting of the same two learned Judges 258 and Harnam Singh J. In course of arguments before the	Full Bench the following further questions were added:
4.Does this Act conflict with the provision of article	14 on the ground that the State has denied to abducted persons equality before the law or the equal protection of the	laws within the territory of India?
5.Does this Act conflict with the provisions of article 15 on the	ground	that the State	has discriminated against abducted persons who happen to be citizens of India on	the ground of religion alone ?
6. Does this Act conflict with article 21 on	the ground that abducted persons are deprived of their personal liberty in a manner which is contrary to principles	of natural justice ? "
There	was also a contention that the Tribunal which decided	this case was not properly constituted in that	its members	were not appointed or nominated by	the Central Government and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal was without jurisdiction.
By their judgments delivered on June 10, 1952, Khosla and Harnam	Singh JJ. answered question 1 in the negative	but Bhandari J. held that the Act was inconsistent with	the provisions of article 19(1) (g) of the	Constitution.	The learned	Judges were unanimous in the view that the Act	was inconsistent with the provisions of article 2.2 and was void to the	extent of such inconsistency.	Question 3 was	not fully argued but Bhandari and Khosla JJ. expressed the	view that the Tribunal was subject to the general supervision of the High Court. The	Full Bench unanimously answered questions 4, 5 and 6 in the negative.	Bhandari and Khosla JJ. further held that the Tribunal	was not properly constituted for reasons mentioned above, but in view of	his finding	that section 4(1) of the Act was in conflict	with article 22(2) Harnam Singh J. did not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the validity of the	constitution of the Tribunal.
The Full Bench with their aforesaid findings remitted the case back to	the Division Bench which had referred	the questions of law to	the larger Beach. The case	was accordingly placed before the Division Bench which thereafter ordered that Musammat Sardaran alias Mukhtiar Kaur be set at liberty.	The girl has since been released. The State of Punjab has now come up on appeal before	us. As the petitioner respondent Ajaib Singh represented to us that he could not afford to brief an advocate to argue	his case, we requested Sri J. B. Dadachanji to take up the	case as ambicus curiae which be readily agreed to do. He has put forward the petitioners case with commendable ability and we place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by him to the Court.
In his opening address the learned Solicitor General frankly admitted that	he could not contend that the Tribunal	was properly constituted under section 6 of the Act and conceded that in the premises the order of the ' High Court directing the girl to be released could not be questioned.	He, however, pressed us to pronounce upon	the constitutional questions raised in this case and decided by the High Court so that the Union Government would be in a	position to decide	whether	it would, with or without modification, extend the life of the Act which is due to expire at the end of the current month. We accordingly heard arguments on the constitutional	questions on the clear	understanding	that whatever view we might express oh those questions, so far as this particular case is concerned, the order of the	High Court	releasing the	girl must stand. After hearing arguments we intimated, in view of the urgency of the matter due to the impending expiry of the Act, that our decision was that the Act did not offend against the provisions of the Constitution and that we would give our reasons later on. We now proceed	to set forth our reasons for	the decision already announced.
In order to appreciate the rival contentions canvassed before us it is necessary to bear in mind the circumstances which led to the promulgation of an Ordinance which	was eventually replaced by Act LXV of 1949 which	is impugned before	us as	unconstitutional. It is now a matter of history	that serious riots of virulent intensity broke	out in India and	Pakistan in the wake of the partition of August, 1947, resulting in a colossal mass exodus of Muslims from India to Pakistan and of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan to India. There were heart-rending tales of abduction of women and children on both sides of the border which	the governments of the two Dominions could not possibly ignore or overlook.	As it was not possible	to deal with	and control	the situation by the ordinary laws the	two governments had to devise ways and means to check the evil. Accordingly there was a conference of the representatives of the two Dominions at Lahore in December, 1947, and Special Recovery Police Escorts and Social Workers began functioning jointly	in both the countries.	Eventually on November	11, 1948, an Inter-Dominion Agreement between India and Pakistan was arrived at for the recovery of abducted persons on	both sides of the	border.	To implement	that agreement	was promulgated on	January 31, 1949, an Ordinance	called	the Recovery of Abducted	Persons Ordinance,. 1949.	This Ordinance was replaced by Act LXV of 1949 which came	into force on December 28, 1949. The Act was to remain in force up to October 31, 1951, but it was eventually extended by a year. That the Act is a piece of beneficial legislation and has served a useful purpose cannot be denied,	for up to February 29, 1952, 7,981 abducted persons were recovered in Pakistan and 16,168 in India this circumstance, however, can have no bearing on the constitutionality of the Act which will have to be judged on purely legal considerations. The Act is a short one consisting of eleven sections.	It will be observed that the purpose of the Act is to implement the agreement between the two countries 261 as recited in the first preamble. The second preamble	will show that the	respective governments	of the States of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Patiala and East Punjab States Union, Rajasthan and	Delhi gave their consent to the Act being passed by the Constituent Assembly a circumstance indicative of the fact that those governments also felt the necessity for this kind of legislation.	By section 1 (2) the	Act extends to the several States mentioned above and is to	re- main in force	up to October	31, 1952. The expression "abducted person" is defined by section 2(1) (a) as meaning " a male child under the age of sixteen years or a female of whatever age who is, or immediately before the 1st day of March, 1947, was a Muslim and who, on or after that day	and before	the 1st day of January, 1949, has become separated from his or her family, and in the latter case	includes a child born to any such female after the said date." Section 4 of the Act, which is important, provides that if	any police	officer, not below the rank of	an Assistant	Sub- Inspector or any other police officer specially authorised by the	State	government in that behalf, has reason to believe that an abducted person resides or is to be found in any place, he	may, after recording the reasons for	his belief,	without warrant, enter and take into	custody	any person	found therein who, in his opinion, is	an abducted person, and deliver or cause such persons to be delivered to the custody of the officer in charge of the nearest	camp with the least possible delay.	Section 6 enacts that if any question arises whether a person detained in a camp is or is not an	abducted person, or whether such person should be restored to his or her relatives or handed over to any other person	or conveyed out of India or allowed to leave	the camp, it shall be referred to, and decided by , 'a Tribunal constituted for the purpose by the Central Government.	The section	makes the decision of the Tribunal final, subject, however, to the power of the Central Government to review or revise	any such decision. Section 7 provides for	the implementation of the decision of the 262 Tribunal by declaring that any officer or authority to	whom the custody of any abducted person 'has been delivered shall be entitled to receive and hold the person in	custody	and either restore such person to his or her relatives or convey such persons out of India. Section 8 makes the detention of any abducted person in a camp in accordance with	the provisions of the Act lawful and saves it from being called in question in any court. Section	9 gives the usual statutory immunity from any suit or proceeding for anything done under the Act in good faith. Section' 10 empowers	the Central	Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act.
The main contest before us has been on question 2 which was answered unanimously by the Full	Bench	against	the State,	namely, whether the Act violates the provisions of article	22. If the recovery of a person as	an abducted person	and the delivery of such person to the nearest	camp can be said to be arrest and detention within the meaning of article	22(1) and (2) then it is quite clear that the	pro- visions of sections 4 and 7 and article 22(1) and (2) cannot stand together at the same time, for, to use the language of Bhandari J., " it is impossible to obey the directions contained in sections 4 and 7 of the Act of 1949 without disobeying the directions contained in clauses (1) and	(2) of article 22." The Constitution commands that every person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours excluding the	time requisite for the journey from the place of arrest to	the Court of the Magistrate but section 4 of the Act requires the police officer who takes	the abducted	person	into custody	to deliver such person to the custody of	the officer-in-charge of the nearest camp for the reception-and detention of	abducted persons. These provisions	are certainly conflicting and inconsistent. The absence	from the Act of the salutary provisions to be found	in article 22(1) and (2) as to the right of the arrested person to be informed of the grounds of such arrest and to consult and to be 263 defended by a	legal practitioner of his choice is	also significant.	The learned Solicitor-General has	not contended before us, as he did before the High Court,	that the overriding provisions of article 22(1) and (2) should be read into the Act, for t e o vious reason that whatever	may be the	effect of the absence from the	Act of provisions similar to those of article 22(1), the provisions of article 22(2) which is wholly inconsistent with section 4 cannot possibly, on account of such inconsistency, be read into the Act. The sole point for our consideration then is whether the taking into custody of an abducted person by a police officer under section 4 of the Act and the delivery of	such person	by him into the custody of the	officerin-charge of the nearest camp can be regarded as arrest and detention within	the meaning of article 22(1) and (2). If they	are not, then there can be no complaint that the Act infringes the fundamental right guaranteed by article 22(1) and (2). Sri	Dadachanji contends that the	Constitution	and particularly Part III the ereof should be construed liber
-ally so that the fundamental rights conferred by it may be of the	widest	amplitude. He refers	us to	the various definitions of the word "arrest" given in several wellknown law dictionaries and urges, in the light of	such definitions, that any physical restraint imposed upon a person	must result in the loss of his personal liberty	and must accordingly amount to his arrest. It is wholly immaterial why	or with what purpose such arrest is made. The mere imposition of physical restraint, irrespective of its reason, is arrest and as such, attracts the	application of the constitutional safeguards guaranteed by	article 22 (1) and (2).	That the result of placing such a	wide definition on the the term "arrest" occurring in article 22 (1) will render many enactments unconstitutional is obvious. To take one example, the arrest of	a defendant before judgment under the provisions of Order XXXVIII, rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure or the arrest of	a judgment- debtor	in execution of a decree -under section 55 of	the Code will, on this 264 hypothesis, be unconstitutional inasmuch as the	Code provides for the production of the arrested	person,	not before	a Magistrate but before the civil court	which	made the order. Sri Dadachanji contends that such consideration should	not weigh with the	court in construing	the Constitution.	We are in agreement with learned counsel to this extent only that if the language of the	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. We have, therefore, to examine the article in question	with care and ascertain the meaning and import of it primarily from its language.
Broadly speaking, arrests may be classified into	two categories, namely, arrests under warrants issued by a court and arrests otherwise than under such warrants. As to	the first category of arrest, sections 76 to 86 collected under sub-heading B-Warrant of Arrest " in Chapter VI of the	Code of Criminal Procedure deal with arrests in execution of warrants issued by a court under that	Code.	Section 76 prescribes that such a warrant must be in writing signed by the presiding	officer, or in the case of	a Bench of Magistrates, by any member of such Bench and bear the	Beal of the court.	Form No. II of Schedule V to the Code is a form of warrant for the arrest of an accused person.	The warrant	quite	clearly has to state that the person to be arrested stands charged with a certain offence., Form	No. VII of	that Schedule is used to bring up a witness.	The warrant	itself recites that the court issuing it has	good and sufficient reason to believe that the witness will	not attend as a witness unless compelled to do so.	The point to be noted is that in either case the 265 warrantex facie sets out the reason for the arrest, namely, that the person to be arrested has committed or is suspected to have committed or is likely to commit some offence.	In short,	the warrant contains a clear accusation against	the person to be arrested.	Section 80 requires that the Police Officer or other person executing a warrant must notify	the substance thereof to the person to be arrested, and, if so required, shall show him the warrant. It is thus abundantly clear that the person to be arrested is informed of	the grounds for his arrest before he is actually arrested.	Then comes section 81 which runs thus:-
" The Police Officer or other person executing a warrant of arrest shall (subject to the provisions of section 76 as to security) without unnecessary delay bring	the person arrested before the Court before which he is required by law to produce such person."
Apart from the Code of Criminal Procedure, there are other statutes which provide for arrest in execution of a warrant of arrest issued by a court.	To take one example, Order XXXVIII, rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure authorises the court to issue a warrant for the arrest of a defendant before	judgment in certain circumstances. Form No. 1 in Appendix F sets out the terms of such a warrant. It clearly recites	that it has been proved to the satisfaction of	the court that there is probable cause for belief that	the defendant is about to do one or other of	the things mentioned in rule 1. The court may under section 55	read with Order XXI, rule 38, issue,a warrant for the arrest of the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree.	Form No. 13 sets out the terms of such a warrant.	The warrant recites the decree and, the failure of the judgment-debtor to	pay the decretal amount to the decree-holder and	directs	the bailiff	of the court to arrest the defaulting judgment- debtor, unless he pays up the decretal amount with costs and to bring him before the court with all convenient speed. The point to be noted is that, as in the case of a warrant of arrest issued by a court under the Code	of Criminal Procedure, a warrant of arrest 266 issued	by a court under the Code of Civil Procedure quite plainly discloses the reason for the arrest in that it	sets out an	accusation of default, apprehended or	actual,	and that the person to be arrested is made acquainted with	the reasons for his arrest before lie is actually arrested. The several sections collected under sub-heading B-Arrest without	warrant " in Chapter V of the Code	of Criminal Procedure deal with arrests otherwise than under warrants issued by a court under that Code. Section 54 sets out nine several circumstances in which a police officer may, without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest a person.	Sections 55, 57, 151 and 401 (3) confer similar powers	on police officers. Column 3, Schedule II to	the Code of Criminal Procedure also specifies; the cases where the police may arrest a person without warrant.	Section 56 empowers an officer in charge of a police station or	any police officer making an investigation under Chapter XIV to require	any officer subordinate to him to arrest without a warrant	any person who may lawfully be arrested without a warrant. In such a case, the officer deputing a subordinate officer	to make the arrest has to deliver to the latter an order in writing specifying the person to be arrested	and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and the subordinate officer is required, before making the arrest, to notify to the person to be arrested	the substance of the order and, if so required by such person, to show him the order.	Section 59 authorises even a private person	to arrest any person who in his view commits a	non- bailable and cognisable offence or any proclaimed offender and requires the person making the arrest to make over	the arrested person, without unnecessary delay, to a police officer	or to take such person in custody to	the nearest police station.	A perusal of the sections referred to above will at once make it plain that the reason in each case of arrest	without	a warrant is that the person,	arrested is accused of having committed or reasonably suspected to	have committed or of 267 being about to commit or of being likely to	commit	some offence or misconduct.	It is also to be noted that there is no provision,	except in section 56, for acquainting	the person	to be arrested without warrant with the grounds	for his arrest. Sections 60 and 61 prescribe the procedure to be followed after a person is	arrested without warrant. They run thus:-
" 60.	A police officer making an arrest without warrant shall	without	unnecessary delay and subject to	the provisions herein contained as to bail, take or send	the person	arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or	before the officer in charge of a police station."
"61.No	police	officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under	all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall,	not, in the absence	of a special	order of a Magistrate under section 167,	exceed	twenty-four hours, exclusive of the, time necessary for the journey from	the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court." Apart from the Code of Criminal Procedure, there are other statutes which authorise the arrest of a person without a warrant	issued	by any Court.	Reference may, byway of example, be made to sections 173 and 174 of the Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878) and section 64 of the Forest Act (XVI of 1927).	In both cases, the reason for the arrest is that the arrested person is reasonably suspected to have been guilty of an offence under the Act and there is provision in	both cases for the immediate production of the arrested person before	a Magistrate. Two things are to be noted, namely, that, as in the cases of arrest without warrant under	the Code of Criminal Procedure, an arrest without warrant under these Acts also proceeds upon an accusation that the person arrested is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence	and there is no provision for communicating to	the person arrested the grounds for his arrest.
Turning	now to article 22(1) and (2), we have to ascertain whether its protection extends to both categories of arrests mentioned above, and, if not, then which one of them comes within its protection.	There can be no manner of doubt that arrests without warrants issued by a court call for greater protection than do arrests under such warrants.	The provision that the arrested person should within 24 hours be produced before the nearest	Magistrate is	particularly desirable in the case of arrest otherwise than under a warrant	issued by the court, for it ensures the immediate application of a judicial mind to the legal authority of the person making the arrest and the regularity of the procedure adopted	by him. In the case of, arrest under a warrant issued	by a court, the judicial mind had already	been applied	to the case	when the warrant was	issued	and, therefore, there is less reason for making such production in that case a matter of a substantive	fundamental right. It is	also perfectly plain that the language	of article 22(2) has been practically copied from sections 60 and 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which admittedly prescribe the procedure	to be followed after a person, has	been arrested without warrant. The requirement of 'article 22(1) that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without	being informed, as soon as may be, of	the grounds for such arrest indicates	that the clause really contemplates an arrest without a warrant of court, for, as already noted, a person arrested under a, court's warrant is made acquainted with the grounds of his arrest	before	the arrest is actually effected. There can be no doubt that the right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice is to enable the arrested person to be advised about the legality or sufficiency of the grounds for his arrest. The right of the arrested person to be defended by a legal	practitioner of his choice postulates that there is an accusation against him against which he has to be defended. The	language of article	22(1) and (2) indicates that the fundamental right conferred by it gives protection against such 269 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.	In other words, there is indication in the	language of article 22(1) and (2) that it	was designed to give protection against the act of the executive or other non-judicial authority. The Blitz case (Petition No. 75 of 1952), on which Sri Dadachanji relies, proceeds on this very view, for there the arrest was made on a warrant issued,	not by a court, but, by the Speaker	of & State Legislature and the arrest was made on the distinct accusation of the arrested person being guilty of contempt of the Legislature. It is not, however, our purpose, nor do we consider it desirable, to attempt a precise	and meticulous enunciation	of the scope	and ambit of	this fundamental right or to enumerate exhaustively the cases that come within its protection. Whatever else may	come within	the purview of article 22(1) and (2), suffice it to say for the purposes of this case, that we are satisfied that 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 section 4 of the impugned Act cannot be regarded as arrest and detention	within	the meaning of article 22(1) and (2). In our view, the learned Judges	of the High Court over-simplified the matter while construing the article, possibly because the considerations hereinbefore adverted to were not pointedly brought to their attention.
Our attention has been drawn to sections loo (search	for persons	wrongfully confined)	and 552 (power to compel restoration of abducted females) of 270 the Code of Criminal Procedure, and it has been urged	that neither of those sections contemplates an accusation against the victim and yet such victim, after recovery, has to be brought	before	a Magistrate.	It is to be observed	that neither of the two sections treats the victim as an arrested person	for the victim is not produced before a Magistrate under sections 60 and 61 'which require the production of a person	arrested without warrant, or under section 81 which directs the production of a person arrested under a warrant issued	by a, court. The recovered victim is	produced by reason	of special provisions of two	sections,, namely, sections 100 and 552.	These two sections clearly indicate that the recovery and taking into custody of such a victim are, not regarded as arrest at all within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, cannot also	come within	the protection	of article. 22(1) and	(2).	This circumstance also lends support"to the conclusion we	have reached, namely, 'that the taking into custody of an abducted person under the impugned Act is not an arrest within	the meaning of article 22(1) and (2).	Before	-the Constitution, came into force it was entirely for	the Legislature to consider whether the recovered person should be produced before a Magistrate as is provided by sections 100 and 552 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the case of persons	wrongfully confined or abducted. By this Act,	the Legislature provided that the	recovered Muslim abducted person should be taken straight to the officer in charge of the camp, and the Court could not question the wisdom of the policy of the Legislature. After the Constitution, article 22 being out of the way, the position in this behalf remains the same.
Sri Dadachanji also argued that the Act is inconsistent with article 14. The meaning, scope and ambit of	that article	need not-be explained again, for they have already been explained by this Court on more than one occasion. [See Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India (1),	The State of Bombay v. F. N.
(1) [1950] S.C.R. 869.
Balsara (1), The State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (2), and Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra (3)]. There	can be	no doubt that Muslim abducted persons constitute a	well-defined class for the	purpose	of legislation. The fact that the Act is extended only to	the several States mentioned in section 1 (2) does not make	any difference, for a classification may well be	made on a geographical basis. Indeed, the consent of	the several States	to the passing of this Act quite clearly indicates, in the opinion of the governments of those States who	are the best judges of the welfare of their people, that	the Muslim abducted persons to be found in those States form one class having similar interests to protect.' Therefore	the inclusion of all of them' in the definition	of abducted persons cannot be called discriminatory. Finally, there is nothing	discriminatory in sections 6 and 7. Section 7	only implements the	decision of the Tribunal arrived at under section	6. There are several alternative things that	the Tribunal has been authorised to do. Each and	everyone of the abducted persons is liable to be treated in one way or another	as the Tribunal may determine. It is like	all offenders under a particular section being liable to a	fine or imprisonment. There is no discrimination if one is fined and the other is imprisoned, for all offenders alike	are open to the risk of being treated in one way or another. In our view, the	High Court quite correctly decided	this question against the petitioner.
The	learned	counsel for the respondent Ajaib Singh contended that the Act was inconsistent with the provisions of article 19(1)(d) and (e) and article 21. This matter is concluded by the majority decision	of this court	in Gopalan's case	(4) and 'the High Court quite correctly negatived this contention. Sri Dadachanji has not sought to support	the views of Bhandari J. regarding the Act being inconsistent with article 19	(1)(g). Nor	has learned counsel (1) [1951] S.C.R. 682.	(3) [1952] S.C.R. 435. (2) [1952] S.C.R. 284.	(4) [1950] S.C.R. 88.
seriously pressed the objection of unconstitutionality based on article 15, which, in our view, was rightly rejected by the High Court.
Although we hold that the	High Court erred on	the construction they Put upon article 22 and the appellant	has succeeded -on	that point before us,	this appeal will, nevertheless, have to be dismissed on the ground that	the Tribunal was not properly constituted and its order	was without jurisdiction, as conceded by the learned Solicitor- General. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal on that ground. We make no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed, Agent for the appellant: P. A. Mehta.