C. Soundaresh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, on Thursday rejected a petition alleging that the Peoples Democratic Party leader, Abdul Nasir Maudany was arrested from Anwarssery on August 17 by the police in violation of Sections 80 and 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The petition filed by Mr. Maudany’s brother Abdul Salam had the Kollam District Superintendent of Police, Harshita Attaluri, as the first respondent and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Bangalore City) H.M. Omkarayya as the second respondent. Mr. Soundaresh observed that complaint appears to have been filed with “bad intentions”.
According to the complainant soon after the arrest Mr. Maudany had to be produced before a magistrate here and since he was not produced it was violation of Section 80 of the CrPC. Moreover if an arrested person has to be taken 30 kms beyond from where the arrest was effected, the arrested person has to be produced before the nearest magistrate court from the place of arrest and then taken ahead. Since this was also not obliged, it is violation of Section 81 of the CrPC.
Deputy Director of Prosecution K. Raju who appeared for Ms. Attaluri and advocate G. Bimalraj who appeared for Mr. Omkarayya countered the allegations raised in the petition by filing two separate objections.
After hearing the objections the court found that all the formalities to be followed after the arrest of a person had been obliged in Mr. Maudany’s arrest.
Mr. Soundaresh stated that the complaint was filed without viewing these aspects. He said in the verdict “I am convincingly satisfied that only after complying with all legal formalities and requirements under Section 80 of the CrPC had Mr. Omkarayya made the arrest.
He pointed out that Mr. Maudany was arrested at 1.20 p.m. on August 17 and is seen to have been produced before the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangaolore at 11.20 p.m. the same day. This itself shows that he had been produced before a court with the time frame.
He said that he was of the “honest opinion” that due procedure were observed before and after the arrest of Mr. Maudany and that the respondents had only discharged their official duty and hence they are entitled to protection as contemplated under Section 197 of the CrPC for police officers. Mr. Soundaresh also added that it was without ascertaining the true facts and provisions of the law that the complaint was preferred by the complainant.
