THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

 
MADHU LIMAYE
( PETITIONER)
 
VERSUS
  VAINY KACHARIA
SUB-DIVISONAL MAGISTRATE, MONGYR  
SAP ID: 81012018028
(RESPONDENT) SY/ BA LLB (HONS)
 
UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF
Prof. (Dr.) SAURABH CHATURVEDI
FACTS OF THE CASE

Member of Lok Sabha, and several other persons were

arrested
MADHU LIMAYE

REASON FOR THE ARREST - According to the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector in-charge of the Government
Railway Police Station, Kiul to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Madhu Limaye and others had defied the
prohibitory orders issued under Section 144, Cr. P.C.

SECTION 144:
Power to issue
JURISDICTIO The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble order in urgent
N Supreme Court under Article 32 of the constitution cases of nuisance
of India . of apprehended
danger.
 ARRESTED MADHU
LIMAYE AND OTHERS OF CHALLENGED SECTION
SECTION 144 OF THE 144 OF CRIMINAL
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE TO
ROCEDURE BE VIOLATE OF 19(1)(a)

LEGAL ISSUE….
 IMPORTANT SECTIONS

SECTION 144 OF THE CODE OF CRIMNAL PROCEDURE

SECTION 144 OF
CRPC
POWER TO ISSUE PROHIBITORY ORDERS

ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

OTHER IMPORTANT SECTIONS OF THE SAID CASE

CHAPTER VIII OF
THE CODE OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE
CRIMINAL CONSTITUTION CHAPTER V111 OF THE CODE i.e. SECTION
PROCEDURE 107
 CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER
• The petitioner and the interveners began arguments by invoking the doctrine of preferred-position for the Fundamental Rights particularly the right to
freedom of speech and expression.
WHETHER
VIOLATIVE OF • It is an American doctrine developed by Roosevelt Court that any law restricting freedom of speech, assembly, etc must be taken on its face to be invalid
ARTICLE 19

• Petitioners claimed that the section suffers from over broadness and the words of the section are wide enough to give an absolute power which may be
exercised in an unjustifiable case.
SECTION 144 OF • Order may be so general as to affect not only a particular person but a group of persons who are innocent . (example..)
Crpc

• Petitioners on Section 144 of Crpc contented that there must be a general proposition of order which shouldn’t be passed without evidence.( Jagrulia
Kumariv Chobey Narain)
CONTENTIONS
ON SECTION 144
OF CRPC

• Petitioners contended that provisions of Section 107 of Crpc clearly indicate that it is not open to a magistrate to depart from the procedure of any
SECTION 107 OF
substantial extent.
THE CRPC
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

• Respondent on petitioners allegation of doctrine of preferred position alleged by citing Kovac’s case.
• In Babul Parate’s Case it was held that the powers can be used in anticipation of danger.

• The section says that the magistrate must be satisfied that immediate prevention of particular acts is necessary to counteract the danger to
public safety.the power conferred by the section is exercisable not only where the present danger exists but it is also exercisable in
apprehension of danger
• Section 144 is primarily used to prohibit assemblies at certain places at certain time when it is considered that the situation is volatile and
could lead to violence.

• The respondent contended that the condition of taking action is that the magistrate is informed and that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding that a person is likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb public tranquility or do any wrongful act.
• The respondent contended that the gist of the chapter is the prevention of crime and disturbances of public tranquility . ‘PUBLIC ORDER’
is an elastic expression which takes within it various meanings according to the context of the law and existence of special circumstances
as was in the said case.
 JUDGEMENT
This Court held therein, as under:

 The gist of action under Section 144 is the urgency of the situation, its efficacy in the likelihood of being able to prevent some
harmful occurrences. As it is possible to act absolutely and even ex parte it is obvious that the emergency must be sudden and
the consequences sufficiently grave.

 Without it the exercise of power would have no justification.

 Our Constitution protects the expression of divergent views, legitimate expressions and disapproval, and this cannot be the basis
for invocation of Section 144 Cr. P. C. unless there is sufficient material to show that there is likely to be an incitement to violence
or threat to public safety or danger.
 JUDGEMENT IN MY OPINION
 In my opinion, it is pointed out that mere A general order is
disobedience of the order is not enough necessary when the
to constitute an offence. There must be in number of person is
addition annoyance, disturbance, riot, to large so that it does not
constitute an offence. violate the provisions of
 But no person can be considered so much the section and public
free to do what he likes when there are order remains
grounds for “ thinking that his conduct unaffected.
would be of the kind described in the
section for the purpose of preventive
action”

THANK YOU