NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

REFORMS IN THE LAW OF ARREST UNDER CRPC
Ninth Trimester

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Prof. P.K. Gupta Vikram Narayan

2008 BALLB 39

A-0813
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Content Page
Introduction and outline of the Paper 4
Provisions under CrPC relating to arrest in brief 6
Practical aspects of Sections 41 and 42, CrPC 7
The Scenario uptil the time amendments had been effected 8
Why the need for an amendment? 12
Misuse of power of arrest 13
The Amendments 14
What were the advantages of the reforms? 15
Conclusion 18
Bibliography 19

2|Page
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Declaration

The text reported in the project is the outcome of my own efforts and no part of this report
has been copied in any unauthorised manner and no part has been incorporated without due
acknowledgement 
 
 
 
 
 Vikram Narayan

3|Page
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

 Introduction

We are not unaware that crime rate is going up in our country for various reasons which need
not be recounted here. Terrorism, drugs and organized crime have become so acute that
special measures have become necessary to fight them not only at the national level but also
at the international level. We also take note of the fact that quite a number of policemen risk
their lives in discharge of their duties and that they are specially targeted by the criminal and
terrorist gangs. We recognize that in certain situations e.g., like the one obtaining in Kashmir
today, a literal compliance with several legal and constitutional safeguards may not be
practicable but we must also take note of and provide for the generality of the situation all
over the country and not be deflected by certain specific, temporary situations. We must also
take note of the fact that very often it is the poor who suffer most at the hands of Police. Their
poverty itself makes them suspects. Take for instance the common belief that only poor men
will commit theft out of sheer greed. But nowadays, even middle classes and other well-to-do
people, who do not have access to political power-wielders, also are becoming targets of
Police excesses. We recognize that ensuring a balance between societal interest in peace and
protection of the rights of the accused is a difficult one but it has to be done. We also
recognize the fundamental significance of the Human Rights, which are implicit in Part III of
our Constitution and of the necessity to preserve, protect and promote the Rule of Law which
constitutes the bedrock of our constitutional system.

 Purpose of the study

The main aim of the paper is to look into the reforms relating to arrest under the Code which
have been implemented in 2009. The paper first in a brief manner outlines the different
provisions relating to arrest in the Code and then seeks to further understand the need for
reforms. The conclusion then deals with the effective change brought about in the law and
what the future may hold with regard to the same.

 Statement of Problem

Arrest is a very vital topic because it involves the state authorities. As will be seen in the
course of this paper, there is a lot of controversy relating to arrest provisions under the CrPC.
This is because of the reason that more often than not, there have been arrest on wrong
grounds in many cases and there has been wrongful prosecution of innocent people. Society
has often raised the issue that the Police has been given untrammelled power and have always
4|Page
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

freely misused the same. Instances are reported in our day-to-day reading of the news that
there has been a flagrant abuse of power by the police and many innocent citizens have
suffered as a result of the same. It was felt that something needed to be done in order to
rectify the inherent problems.

 Conceptual framework

The paper deals with Amendments in the law of arrest. The aim here is to understand what
the problems relating to the law of arrest, and what amendments have been enacted in the
Code. The main aim that this seeks to fulfil is to first understand the pre-amendments
scenario and why the need to change the law was felt. The paper will deal with stating the
law, understanding the law; and then analyzing the changes which have been effected.

 Methodology

The methodology used in the paper is doctrinal study. The topic selected is the Law of Arrest
in reference to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

 Data Collection

The data collected is secondary. No fieldwork has been done, as the research is theoretical
and has taken references from Police Reports, Reports of the Law Commission, NHRC
Reports- which are all primary data sources.

5|Page
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

DESCRIPTION

Provisions under CrPC relating to arrest in brief

 Chapter five of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the arrest of persons.
Section 41 is the main section providing for situations when Police may arrest without
warrant.

 Section 43 speaks of a situation where an arrest can be made by a private person and
the procedure to be followed on such arrest.

 Section 44 deals with arrest by a magistrate. Section 45 protects the members of the
Armed Forces from being arrested under sections 41 to 44.

 Section 46 sets out the manner in which the arrest should be made and section 47
enables the police officer to enter a place if he has reason to believe that the person to
be arrested has entered into that place or is within that place.

 Section 48 empowers the police officers to pursue the offenders into any place in
India beyond their jurisdiction. Section 49 however provides that “the person arrested
shall not be subjected to more restraint than is necessary to prevent his escape”.

 Section 50 (which corresponds to clause (1) of Article 22 of the Constitution) creates

an obligation upon the police officer to communicate to the person arrested full
particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest
forthwith. It also provides that where a person is arrested for a bailable offence
without a warrant, the police officer shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled
to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.

 Section 51 provides for search of arrested person while section 52 empowers the
police officer to seize offensive weapons from the arrested person. Sections 53 and 54
provide for medical examination of the arrested person at the request of the police
officer or at the request of the arrested person, as the case may be. Section 55
prescribes the procedure to be followed when a police officer deputes his subordinate
to arrest a person without warrant.

 Section 56 (which corresponds to clause (2) of Article 22) of the Constitution,

provides that the person arrested shall not be kept in the custody of a police officer for
6|Page
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

a longer period than is reasonable and that in any event such period shall not exceed
24 hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the
magistrate’s court. Of course if the magistrate permits the police officer to keep such
person in his custody, he can do so beyond the period of 24 hours. Section 58 casts an
obligation upon the officers in charge of police station to report to the specified
authorities of arrests made without warrant within their jurisdiction and of the fact
whether such persons have been admitted to bail or not. Section 59 says that no
person arrested by a police officer shall be discharged except on his own bond or bail
or under the special order of the magistrate. Section 60, which is the last section in the
chapter, empowers the person having the lawful custody to pursue and retake the
arrested person if he escapes or is rescued from his custody.

Practical aspects of sections 41 and 42, CrPC

A reading of the above provisions and, in particular, of Sections 41 and 42 shows the width
of the power of arrest vested in police officers.

 Take for example, the ground in clause (b) of Section 41. It empowers a police officer to
arrest a person who is in possession of “any implement of house breaking” and the burden
is placed upon that person to satisfy that possession of such implement is not without
“lawful excuse”. What does an “implement of house breaking” mean? Any iron/steel rod
or any implement used by way-side repairers of punctured tyres can also be used for
house breaking. Similarly, clause (d): Any person found in possession of stolen property
“and who may be reasonably suspected of having committed an offence with reference to
such thing.” What a wide discretion? Why, take clause (a) itself. The situations covered
by it are: (i) a person who is “concerned in any cognizable offence”, (ii), a person against
whom a reasonable complaint is made that he is “concerned in a cognizable offence”; (iii)
a person against whom “credible information” is received showing that he is “concerned
in any cognizable offence” and (iv) a person who is reasonably suspected of being
“concerned in any cognizable offence”. The generality of language and the consequent
wide discretion vesting in police officers is indeed enormous – and that has been the very
source of abuse and misuse. The qualifying words “reasonable”, “credible” and
“reasonably” in the Section amount to nothing in practice. They have become redundant;
in effect.

7|Page
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

 Wider powers of arrest under section 151, CrPC- Added to these provisions are the
preventive provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure which empower the police to
arrest persons. Section 151 empowers a police officer to arrest any person, without orders
from a Magistrate and without warrant, “if it appears to such officer” that such person is
designing to commit a cognizable offence and that the commission of offence cannot be
prevented otherwise. We do not think it necessary to emphasize the width of the power. It
may be true that the satisfaction of the police officer contemplated by the expression “if it
appears to such officer” is not subjective but is objective but in India, police officers
making a wrongful arrest whether under section 41 or 151, are seldom proceeded against,
much less punished. There are too many risks involved in doing so.

The Scenario uptil the time amendments had been effected

Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court: The effort of the courts, and in particular of the
Supreme Court over the last more than two decades has been to circumscribe the vast
discretionary power vested by law in Police by imposing several safeguards and to regulate it
by laying down numerous guidelines and by subjecting the said power to several conditions.1
The effort throughout has been to prevent its abuse while leaving it free to discharge the
functions entrusted to the Police. While it is not necessary to refer to all of them for the
purpose of this working paper, it would be sufficient if we refer to a few of them (which
indeed reaffirm and recapitulate the directions and guidelines contained in earlier decisions).
In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.2 the power of arrest and its exercise has been dealt with at
length. It would be appropriate to refer to certain perceptive observations in the judgment:

“The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time, the crime rate is also
increasing. Of late, this court has been receiving complaints about violation of human rights
because of indiscriminate arrests. How are we to strike a balance between the two?

A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law of arrest is one of balancing
individual rights, liberties and privileges, on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations
and responsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights, liberties and
privileges of the single individual and those of individuals collectively; of simply deciding
what is wanted and where to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which comes first -

1
Subodh Chandra Roy v. Emperor ILR 52 Cal. 319; Muhammad v. C. Kannan AIR 1943 Mad. 218; Tribhuwan
Singh v. Rex AIR 1949 Oudh 74.
2
AIR 1994 SC 1349
8|Page
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

the criminal or society, the law violator or the law abider; of meeting the challenge which
Mr. Justice Cardozo so forthrightly met when he wrestled with a similar task of balancing
individual rights against society’s rights and wisely held that the exclusion rule was bad law,
that society came first, and that the criminal should not go free because the constable
blundered. The quality of a nation’s civilisation can be largely measured by the methods it
uses in the enforcement of criminal law.”

This court in Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani3, quoting Lewis Mayers, stated:

“To strike the balance between the needs of law enforcement on the one hand and the
protection of the citizen from oppression and injustice at the hands of the law-enforcement
machinery on the other is a perennial problem of statecraft.”

Over the years, the pendulum has swung to the right. There exists a rivalry between societal
interest in effecting crime detection and constitutional rights which accused individuals
possess. There has always been an unspoken conflict between the need to punish a criminal
and the protection of her/his rights during the pre-trial procedure. This is a matter of concern
in all criminal jurisprudences. For example, in USA in the Miranda4 case, there has been
retreat from stress on protection of the accused and gravitation towards society’s interest in
convicting law-breakers. This was also discussed at length in the 177 th Report of the Law
Commission in India. In the landmark case of Couch v. United States5, it was said that
essentially, the way this problem has to be tackled with is to look at the circumstances of each
case and refrain from adopting an absolutist view. The aim is to view everything from a
humane perspective and balance the two sides of the coin.

The other landmark judgment in this regard was the case of DK Basu v. State of West
Bengal.6 This case also involved an extensive discussion relating to law of arrest under the
CrPC. As was the case with other similar decisions which have been discussed earlier, the
thrust was to create an atmosphere of understanding as regards arrest and it’s compliance
with Constitutional provisions. As in the Nandini Sathpathy case, there was heavy emphasis
on the compliance with Art. 22. The court here enlisted certain preventive measures to ensure
that the law of arrest in not misused by the Police Department. These rights flowing from Art.
21 and 22 have to be adhered to in absolute terms. The points enlisted by the court consisted
3
AIR 1978 SC 1025 at p. 1032
4
Miranda v. State of Arizona (1966) 334 US 436
5
(1972) 409 US 322, 336
6
AIR 1997 SC 610
9|Page
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

of informing a friend or relative of the arrest, permission to the arrestee to meet her/his
lawyer during interrogation, preparation of a memo of arrest, subjection to a medical
examination within 48 hours of arrest etc. A very important observation that the court made
was to also generate public awareness in this regard. The Apex Court felt that the knowledge
was not to be limited to the authorities, but also the citizens in general. After all, the
touchstone of the regulations put forth was civil liberties under the Indian Constitution.
Hence, the court also gave the suggestion of broadcasting the same through All India Radio
and Television Channels like Doordarshan. This would also help bring in more transparency
and accountability.

In 1999, a special request was made by the Law Commission to the NHRC 7 to undertake a
survey and prepare a report on number of arrests made by the police in that district in a given
year without warrant, the number of arrests which were made without registering the crime,
the number of cases in which the person arrested was released without filing a chargesheet
and the length of his detention, the number of cases in which chargesheets were filed and the
number of cases in which the prosecution resulted in conviction. There were varying statistics
and observations for each state. Every state reviewed had its plus and minus points. There
was an estimation of prisoners, under-trials, time taken for trial etc. done for every state
reviewed. The broad features which were disclosed from this survey undertaken were:

 The number of “preventive arrests” is unusually large. Preventive arrests evidently

means arrests made under sections 107 to 110 and 151 CrPC and under local Police
enactments containing similar provisions.
 The percentage of under trial prisoners in jails is unusually large. The reasons for this
may be the delays in concluding the trials in criminal courts, the rigidity of the present
law of bail and in some cases, the inability of the accused to furnish bail.
 The Supreme Court had held that under trial prisoners whose cases have been pending
beyond a particular period should be enlarged on bail or on personal bond 8. These
directions applied not only to cases pending on the dates of those orders but were also
effective prospectively. As and when the case of a particular prisoner fell within one
or the other direction given in those cases, he has to be released. For this purpose,
both the criminal courts and the jail authorities should be vigilant and cooperate with

7
National Human Rights Commission
8
Common Cause, A Registered Society v. UOI (1996) 4 SCC 33 and Common Cause, A Registered Society v.
UOI 1996 (6) SCC 775
10 | P a g e
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

each other. They must constantly monitor the facts of each under trial prisoner. But
this is not being done either because jail authorities do not furnish full and relevant
particulars or because the court also does not look into these matters. This may be an
additional contributing factor.
 The number of arrests for petty offences is substantial, if not more than the arrests
made for serious offences. This is a serious problem which calls for attention. It is
probably this factor which made the Police Commissions to observe that a large
number of arrests are unnecessary.

Because if the aforementioned observations, suggestions were made by the Law Commission
in its 177th Report regarding the provisions relating to arrest under the Code. Along with
some specific suggestions relating to the language and definition if “bailable”, there were also
suggestions laid down along the lines of the guidelines given in the landmark cases relating to
the law of arrest viz the Nandini Sathpathy, DK Basu and Joginder Kumar case. The gist of
these suggestions was that arrest be made only in exceptional circumstances when it was
required, or if it was felt that the accused was likely to abscond the law.

European Court of Human Rights in Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. U.K.9 declaring that
section 11 of Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1978 is violative of Article 5(1)
of the European Convention on Human Rights. The section empowered a police officer to
arrest a person if he is “suspected of being a terrorist”. The Court (by majority) held that mere
suspicion, however bona fide held, cannot be a ground for arrest. Pursuant to the decision, the
aforesaid words were replaced by the words “has been concerned in the commission,
preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”. This decision is in accord with the modern
concept of human rights, which are implicit in Part III of our Constitution.

ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE

Why the need for an amendment?

If anything, the first point that comes in mind when one talks about the police force is that
there is a dire need for reforms, not just for strengthening the system and making it more
transparent; but to instil more trust in the citizens as regards the criminal justice system in our
9
delivered on 30th August, 1990
11 | P a g e
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

country. The various Jail Surveys, Police Station reports etc. all bear testimony to the fact that
the case of the Police Department is nothing but a dismal state of affairs. The thrust here is
that the law needs to ensure that fear regarding the police is removed from the minds of the
innocent and only instils itself in the potential law-breakers and/or hardened criminals.

The National Police Commission in its Third Report referring to the quality of arrests by the
Police in India mentioned power of arrest as one of the chief sources of corruption in the
police. It is obvious that a major portion of the arrests were connected with very minor
prosecutions and cannot, therefore, be regarded as quite necessary from the point of view of
crime prevention. Continued detention in jail of the persons so arrested has also meant
avoidable expenditure on their maintenance. In the above period it was estimated that 43.2
per cent of the expenditure in the connected jails was over such prisoners only who in the
ultimate analysis need not have been arrested at all.10

The figures given in this report are more than two decades old. But the situation seemed to
worsen over the years; manifesting itself in a symbolic manner as a plea for reforms.

As far back as 1999, the Royal Commission11 in England suggested that arrest may be made
on the basis of the necessity principle. The two main objectives of this principle are that
police can exercise powers only in those cases in which it was genuinely necessary to enable
them to execute their duty to prevent the Commission of offences, to investigate crime. The
Royal Commission was of the view that such restrictions would diminish the use of arrest and
produce more uniform use of powers.

Misuse of power of arrest

Notwithstanding the safeguards contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
Constitution referred to above, the fact remains that the power of arrest is wrongly and
illegally exercised in a large number of cases all over the country. Very often this power is
utilized to extort monies and other valuable property or at the instance of an enemy of the
person arrested. Even in case of civil disputes, this power is being resorted to on the basis of a
false allegation against a party to a civil dispute at the instance of his opponent. The vast
10
The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60% of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and
that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2% of the expenditure of the jails. The said Commission in
its Third Report at page 31 observed the same.
11
The term Royal Commission may also be used in the United Kingdom to describe the group of Lords
Commissioners who may act in the stead of the Sovereign to grant Royal Assent to legislation passed by
Parliament. A Royal Commissioner has considerable powers, generally greater even than those of a judge but
restricted to the "Terms of Reference" of the Commission. The Commission is created by the Head of State.
12 | P a g e
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

discretion given by the CrPC to arrest a person even in the case of a bailable offence (not
only where the bailable offence is cognizable but also where it is non-cognizable) and the
further power to make preventive arrests (e.g. under section 151 of the CrPC and the several
city police enactments), clothe the police with extraordinary power which can easily be
abused. Neither there is any in-house mechanism in the police department to check such
misuse or abuse nor does the complaint of such misuse or abuse to higher police officers bear
fruit except in some exceptional cases.

A gory picture of the misuse of the power to arrest is evident from the fact that, 1,23,000
women have been arrested in the last four years (2004-2007), as per National Crime Records
Bureau, on a mere complaint, without trial or investigation, in offenses under Section 498A.
These women are the mothers, sisters, and sister-in-laws and female children in the family of
men who are mostly falsely implicated in such cases as section 498A of the IPC has come
under serious scanner of being heavily misused. With this amendment in place, such
gruesome mishaps on women were sought to be averted.

The Amendments

Home Minister P. Chidambaram introduced in the Lok Sabha the Criminal Procedure Code
(Amendment) Bill, 2010, that seeks to restrain the police from arresting a person for criminal
offences for which the maximum sentence is seven-year imprisonment and mandates the
police officer to record in writing the reasons for not making the arrest. The amendment is
was said to be needed to bring quite some amount of accountability to police and put an end
to arbitrary arrests, detentions, torture, extortion and even custodial deaths. This is also
expected to reduce the fear people have about police.

The newly suggested CrPC amendments seem to be doing some things right but also causing
confusion and ambiguity in the sense that there is too much reliance being placed that
efficiency of police and public justice will be served by forever tinkering with rules and
procedure. Also there is lurking suspicion that law ministry and other stakeholders are forever
trying to tinker with procedures and rules to placate public and powerful lawyer community. 
Actually it is powerful lawyer community which seems to be the main stakeholder who no
one wants to alienate, going by the whole drama so far ever since CrPC 2008 amendments
were proposed!

13 | P a g e
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

In 2008, the government introduced amendments to Section 41 CrPC which says: “No person
concerned in a non-cognizable offence or against whom a complaint has been made or
credible information received or reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned
shall be arrested except under a warrant or order of a magistrate.”

According to the Statement of objects and reasons, in the light of objections from certain
quarters to certain provisions of the CrPC amendment Act 2008, the Act could not be brought
into force. The Law Commission discussed the issue with all concerned, including the
Chairperson(s) of the Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India. After consultations, it
recommended a further amendment of Section 41 to make it compulsory for the police to
record the reasons for making as well not making an arrest for a cognizable offence for which
the maximum punishment is seven years. The Commission also suggested that unwillingness
of a person who has not been arrested to identify himself and to whom a notice has been
issued could be a ground for arrest. The Bill seeks to achieve these objectives.

However, arrest can be made without a warrant, after recording the reasons in writing if the
police officer is satisfied that it is necessary for proper probe, or to prevent the person from
committing any further offence or making any inducement, threat or promise to anyone
acquainted with the facts of the case. Soon after the amendment, lawyers were up in arms and
urged the government not to notify the amended law.

 The new amendment incorporates a clause in Section 41 which says: “A police officer
shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required, record the reasons in
writing for not making the arrest.”

 Further, as per Section 41 A, the police, instead of arresting the accused, will be
obliged to issue him/her a “notice of appearance” for any offence punishable with
imprisonment up to seven years. The person can be arrested only if he/she does not
appear before the police in response to the notice.

 This provision is now amended to the effect that “where such person fails to comply
with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may,
subject to orders as may have been passed by a competent court, arrest him for the
offence mentioned in the notice.”

What were the advantages of the reforms?

14 | P a g e
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

 The amendments sought to basically remedy an age-old problem in the law of arrest-
the fact that many are under the impression that the Police, more than often, misuse
their power of arrest and innocent people are arrested in this process. The Law
Minister had expressed that the reforms were made to make the law more scientific
and more effective.

 The fact that under Section 51, the accused has a right to have his friends/relatives
informed about her/his arrest is also a welcome step sp far as the issue of reforms
goes. Such procedural safeguards are absolutely necessary considering that there have
been previous instances of misuse of the power by the police. It is true that the aim of
the criminal justice system is to rectify the criminal and prevent the crime from
occurring again. But we must never forget that the accused is also a human, and
flagrant abuse of power to unleash a vendetta against the accused would defeat the
very principles on which our justice system stands.

 The changes introduced in the Code to safeguard the interests of women are laudable.
Section 46 of the Code now provides that no woman can be arrested after sunset and
before sunrise, except in exceptional circumstances where the woman police officer
may do so after obtaining written permission of the Judicial Magistrate concerned.
The success of this provision, however, depends on the checks put on the wide
discretionary powers of arrest vested with the police.12

 The word “may” under the Section 41A was substituted with the word “shall”. The
latter was basically a step towards ensuring that there is some mandate in the words of
the Section.

 Another important thing to note here is that this amendment does not take away the
“power to arrest” of police. It only puts checks and balances to police’s powers, which
will go a long way in stopping abuse, torture, corruption and extortion in police
stations. With this accountability structure in place, now police will be held
accountable, if they do any arbitrary arrests without evidence or investigation. As
police will be free from involvement in personal and political vendettas, the false

12
The Law Commission of India in its 135th report on “Women in Custody” (1989) had recommended the
insertion of a separate chapter in the Code, containing various detailed provisions to avoid harassment to women
during arrest and in custody but the amendment fails to take into account this recommendation. This amendment
was inserted by the Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act, 2005 which came into effect in June 2006.

15 | P a g e
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

criminal cases will reduce in the country. It is police and lawyers, who used to gain
maximum by encouraging people to file false criminal complaints against each other.
This is certain to stop. With this amendment, even politicians cannot use police
against each other for political vendetta.

 It has been held violation of the proposed provisions in sections 41A to 41D would
constitute an offence within the meaning of section 166 IPC 13, which not being a
provision relating to contempt of subordinate courts would not also attract proviso to
section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.14

13
Section 166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person
Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to
conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such
disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
14
Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras AIR 1952 SC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Reva Shankar
AIR 1959 SC 102. This was also expressed in the

16 | P a g e
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

 Conclusion

Thus we can infer that no matter what the law is, the main emphasis is on the fact that there
should be proper balance between the individual liberty and security of the state and the
former should not transgress the latter. It is not as if the freedom of an individual an
individual must yield totally to the security of the state. The right of preventive detention of
individuals in the interest of security of the state in various situations prescribed under
different statutes has been upheld by the courts. The right to interrogate the detenus, culprits
or arrestees in the interest of the nation, must take precedence over an individual’s right to
personal liberty. The Latin maxim salus populi suprema lex (the safety of the people is the
supreme law) and salus republicae suprema lex (safety of the State is the supreme law)
coexist and are not only important and relevant but lie at the heart of the doctrine that the
welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community. The action of the State,
however, must be "right, just and fair".

In recent news, India has asked Sri Lanka to follow 'due processes of law' in the detention of
former army chief and defeated opposition presidential leader Sarath Fonseka who was
arrested for allegedly conspiring to topple the government. The former chief of defence staff,
who had led the Sri Lankan military to victory against the Tamil Tigers, was arrested recently
after being charged with conspiring against the government of Mahinda Rajapaksa, his
former friend, and creating rifts in the army. His wife and supporters claimed he was
humiliated during his arrest. Indian external affairs ministry spokesperson Vishnu Prakash
said India was in 'touch with the Government of Sri Lanka about the detention of retired Gen
Sarath Fonseka'.

As a friend and neighbour, we trust that due processes of law will be observed in democratic
Sri Lanka in this matter. This has shown how far India has gone from neglecting and having
ambiguity regarding the law of arrest towards even discussing what should be done in the
same across boundaries. It is thus evident that we must ensure that the Amendments which
have been enacted are implemented in their true spirit and prove to be effective.

17 | P a g e
CrPC IXth Trimester- Reforms in the Law of Arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles
 http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article245953.ece

 newshopper.sulekha.com/india-tells-lanka-to-follow-law-in-fonseka
arrest_news_1148006.html

 nyayabharat.blogspot.com/.../crpc-amendment-bill-2008-police-cannot.html

Books

PSA Pillai’s CRIMINAL LAW, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Nagpur, 10th  Ed. 2008

C.K. Thakker ed., RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL'S LAW OF CRIMES, (New Delhi; Bharat
Law House, 1998)

P. Murphy ed., BLACKSTONE'S CRIMINAL PRACTICE (London: Blackstone Press, 2000)

D.D. Basu, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973 VOL 1, Prentice-Hall Of India Pvt Ltd

V. Suresh, D. Nagasaila ed., PSA PILLAI'S CRIMINAL LAW, (9th edn., New Delhi:
Butterworths India, 2000)

J. Dine, CASES AND MATERIALS ON CRIMINAL LAW (New Delhi: Lawman India Pvt.
Ltd., 1995)

Web Sources

 www.indiatogether.org/rti

 www.manupatra.com

 www.legalservicesindia.com

18 | P a g e