Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 53 of 1962, decided on 4th December 1962.

S. 100‑Person produced before Magistrate under search warrant, if major, cannot be kept confined anywhere against his or her will.

Miss Purna Chowdhury alias Bulbuli alias Meharunnessa Begum v. The State 8 D L R 293; Santipada Ganguly v. Sovarani Ganguly Criminal Revision Case No. 360 of 1959; Ayesha Begum alias Anila Chanda v. The State 13 D L R 681; Nityananda Dutta v. Ashraf Alam Assa and another Criminal Revision Case No. 778 of 1961; Ramesh Chandra Mandal v. Md. Atiqullah and another Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 59 of 1961 and Bholanath Goswami v. The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and others 61 C W N 330 ref.

Ss. 363 & 366‑Offence alleged to have been committed by somebody in relation to minor‑Court, in interest of justice, entitled to take minor into custody and arrange for his or her detention for temporarily isolating minor from influence of interested persons‑Abserce of provision re detention of minor in Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) does not mean that such detention is prohibited‑Necessity of establishing neutral home for such purpose by Government.

Santipada Ganguly v. Sovarani Ganguly Criminal Revision Case No. 360 of 1959; Amin Bux v. Meher Ali and others P L D 1962 Kar. 725; Muhammad Sharif v. Lal Muhammad and another P L D 1962 Quetta 108 and Mushtaq Ahmed v. Mirza Muhammad Amin and others P L D 1962 Kar. 442 ref.

Moazzem Hossain for Petitioner. Asaduzzanzan Khan for Opposite‑Party No. 2.

Abdus Salam Khan: Amicus Curiae.

This Miscellaneous case arises out of G. R. Case No. 723 of 1961 in which the Police submitted charge sheet against five persons under sections 363 and 366, Pakistan Penal Code, on a first information report lodged by Jnanendra Nath Saha father of Jotsna Rani Saha who claims to have voluntarily embraced Islam and taken the Muslim name of Jahanara Begum.

The facts giving rise to this case may be summarised as follows: A search warrant for the production of Jotsna Rani Saha was issued and in pursuance thereof the Police, on the 4th of November 1961, produced her before Mr. M. A. Rahman, a Magistrate of the First Class. Jotsna thereafter made the following statements;

"My name is Jahanara Begum. I am of 18 years of age. Nobody enticed me or seduced me. I was not abducted by anybody. I at my own accord embraced Islam and made affidavit at Rajbari Court. A. Khaleque is my own brother. I like to go with Chairman, Majchar Union."

An application for bail was moved on her behalf and the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer and remanded the girl to custody till the 20th of November 1961. He further directed that the girl might be examined by the Civil Surgeon.

The Civil Surgeon examined the girl on the 19th November 1961 with her consent and opined that the age of the girl was about 18 years.

The learned Magistrate did not allow her to go to the Chairman, Majchar Union to whom she expressed her willingness to go, and kept her in custody from the 5th to the 20th of November 1961. On the 21st of November, she was however allowed to go with one Tinu Mullick and on the 18th of December the girl was remanded again to hajat. It appears thereafter that the Sessions Judge, on being moved, ordered that the girl would be allowed to go with a disinterested person selected by both the parties. In pursuance of that order, the learned Magistrate, on the 22nd of December 1961, allowed her to go with one Momin Sk. This order however was cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge, on a finding that Momin Sk. was not a neutral person.

The girl then moved the High Court and obtained a Rule but it was ultimately discharged by Asir and Idris, JJ, on a finding that Momin Sk. was not a disinterested person but it would be open to the girl to furnish proper surety as directed by the learned Sessions Judge.

Momin Sk. thereafter produced the girl on the 29th of May 1962 and she was kept in custody.

The girl then moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.

Her case is that she is aged 18 years and thus being a major she cannot be detained by the Court particularly when she is neither an accused nor even a witness mentioned in the charge sheet submitted by the police. The claim of majority is based on her own statement and the report of the Civil Surgeon, Faridpur.

Before we decide this claim of Jotsna, a point of law, which has been raised in this case and which very often comes up for consideration, needs to be considered.

It has been contended by Mr. Moazzem Hossain appearing for Jotsna that the only power under which a Magistrate can direct the detention of any person who is not an accused is contained in section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but that section is applicable only if the Magistrate has "reason to believe that any person is coned under such circumstances that the confinement amounts to an offence."

There is an authority of this Court in the case of Miss Purna Chowdhury alias Bulbuli alias Meharunnessa Begum v. The State (8 D L R 293), which has laid down that if in such circumstances the person concerned is found to be an adult he or she cannot be detailed against his or her will by any Court. This appears to have been the view taken by Rahman, J., also in the case of Santipada Ganguly v. Sovarani Ganguly Criminal Revision Case No. 360 of 1959 disposed of on 25‑6‑1959.

In the case of Ayesha Begum alias Anila Chanda v. The State (P L D 1963 Dacca 172=13 D L R 681) Murshed and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ., while considering a case in which there was no allegation of a wrongful and illegal confinement or detention, observed as follows:

"We should not be understood to have laid down that a Magistrate cannot pass, under proper circumstances, acting under the provisions of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an order that a person, who has been wrongfully confined, be kept in custody of the Court for a reasonable period of time m a Neutral Home or any other place with a view to ascertain what the free will of the person concerned is. Such a course is usually taken in order to enable such person to be free from, the effect of any coercion or undue influence might have been exercised over him or her. It is thought that such persons in such situations are incapable of exercising an independent mind unless kept for a reasonable time in neutral custody. Even in such a case the person concerned cannot be detained indefinitely."

The considerations which weighed with the learned Judges in making the above observations were that the will expressed by the victim immediately on production before the Magistrate may not be his or her free will. It cannot be disputed however that in that case also it was held that the free will of the victim, if major, was to prevail over anything else. In the case of Nityananda Dutta v. Ashraf Alam Assa and another Criminal Revision Case No. 778 of 1961 disposed of on

12‑2‑1962, decided by a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us was a party, the order of the learned Magistrate v allowing a girl aged over 16 years to go with the accused was not interferred with.

In the case of Ramesh Chundra Mandal v. Md. Atiqullah and another Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 59 of 1961 disposed of on 23‑8‑61 by Murshed and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ.) which was an application under section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner alleged that the opposite‑party had detained her lawfully married wife. The girl being produced in Court stated her age to be 17 years and then the Court allowed her to go wherever she liked.

In the case of Bholanath Goswami v. The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and others (61 C W N 330), a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, while considering a case coming under section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code, observed as follows:

"The question for decision is whether the section empowers a Magistrate to order the detention of any person who is sui juris. The words shall make such order as in the circum stances of the case seems proper' do not vest in the Magistrate any such jurisdiction. In our view, any order made in exercise of the discretion vested in the Magistrate is subject always to the implied proviso that the order is otherwise legal. In the case concerned the lady was not an accused and could not, therefore, be arrested and detained. As the person requiring any special protection any order of detention would inevitably offend against one or more of the fundamental rights of the person concerned."

It will, therefore, be seen that there is almost unanimity that if the person concerned brought before the Magistrate, even when section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable is aged 16 years or over, the will of the victim must be allowed to prevail. The position of such a person is at the most that of a witness and therefore not being an accused he or she cannot be detained. The only provisions that can apply in such cases are those of sections 91 and 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code if a bond is executed there is no question of detention. We are, therefore, of the view that, even in a case in which section 1001 is applicable, the person detained, is major, cannot be kept anywhere against his or her free will.

We shall revert to the questions whether section 100, Criminal Procedure Code is applicable in the present case and if Jotsna major.

Mr. Asaduzzaman Khan has argued she is a minor and as such she should be detained in neutral custody until her state ment relating to the offences alleged against the accused persons is recorded. Mr. Asaduzzaman Khan has not been able to point out any provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code apart from section 100. The said section is in general terms and make no distinction between a major and a minor.

In the case of Santipada Ganguly v. Sovarani Ganguly Criminal Revision Case No. 360 of 1959 disposed of on 25.6‑59 decided by Rahman, J., to which reference has already been made, the learned Judge, after coming to a finding that in that case section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not attracted, observed as follows:

"If the girl was, in fact, a minor, under the age of 14 years, then, in my view, the only other provision that might enable a Court to make such an order for the detention of such a minor who is not an accused or an alleged offender, is section 27 of the Bengal Children Act, 1922 (Bengal Act II of 1922). It is curious, however that this Act too does not contain any provision of the nature contained in section 14 of the Bombay Children Act (Bombay Act XIII of 1924) which enables the Court to make arrangement for the proper custody of a minor girl who is involved in an offence".

It is not necessary for us to go into the provisions of the Bengal Children Act, 1922 in the present case as it is nobody's case that Jotsna is aged below 14 years. In the above case, the Magistrate did not come to a finding with regard to the age of girl. An application for her examination by a radiologist for the ascertainment of her age by the ossification test was pending and in that view of the matter it was observed that "if she is a minor, then the complexion of the entire case will necessarily change and adequate arrangements in accordance with law may have to be made for the custody of the minor girl. Naturally, if she is a minor, the persons best entitled to her custody would be her own parents; but then the interest of the girl herself must be the most important fact in determining as to in whose custody she should be kept on the analogy of the principles governing such matters under the Guardians and Wards Act."

In the case of Amin Bux v. Meher Ali and others (P L D 1962 Kar. 725) Wahiduddin Ahmed, J., on an application under section 491, Cr. P. C. filed by Amin Bux the father of a girl named Mst. Sohini, who was found to be aged more than 14 years allowed her to go wherever she liked. In the case of Muhammad Sharif v. Lal Muhammad and another (P L D 1962 Quetta 108) Jamil Husain Rizvi, J. has observed:

"In a case under section 363, P. P. C. the police officer should apply for a warrant being issued by a Magistrate under section 100, Cr. P. C. and then produce the minor before the Magistrate for such orders as in the circumstances of the case, the Magistrate might deem proper. The abducted girl was no doubt a witness in the case but she cannot be detained against her will especially in the case of a legally wedded woman."

Lastly we have the decision in Mushtaq Ahmed v, Mirza Muhammad Amin and others (P L D 1962 Kar. 44.2). In this case the petitioner claiming to be the husband of a girl named Mst. Shagufta Parween applied for a Writ of habeas corpus against the father of the girl and another. The girl admitted her marriage with the petitioner and it was found that even according to the father she was aged more than 15 years at the time of the marriage. In these circumstances, a Division Bench of the West Pakistan High Court allowed the girl in deference to her will, to go with the petitioner.

It is true that we have not been able to lay our hands on any, specific provision in the Code allowing the detention of a minor where an offence has been alleged to have been committed by somebody relating to the said minor until his or her evidence is recorded, but there cannot be any question that such a course is highly necessary in the interest of justice in certain circumstances. The alleged victim's statement in connection with the enquiry into the offence may, under certain circumstances, be of the utmost importance and may be the only piece of evidence in determining g if an offence has been committed, and, if so, what offence. If the victim is a minor, i.e., below the age of 16 years, then the necessity for following such a course flows from the consideration that an impressionable mind is likely to be influenced by the atmosphere in which it is found.

In the mere absence of any specific statutory provision in the Code one need not read a prohibition. The very nature of the duties cast on Courts carries with it the widest discretionary powers in the exercise of control over the conduct of the proceedings before them. This view is now well‑established and enshrined in numerous decision by eminent Judges of the Superior Courts of this Sub‑continent. Indeed, it was necessary to recognise this Rule for ensuring real and substantial justice between the contending parties seeking justice in Courts whether Civil or Criminal. Taking a minor into custody or arranging for his or her detention, with a view to temporarily isolating him or her from certain influences, may be necessitated by the dictates of justice. That custody or detention is certainly different from the custody of an alleged criminal, and even of a political detenu. It has the complexion of the custody of a guardian. It has an objective different from confinement or placing restrictions on his or her movement. It is for giving a chance to the minor to develop his or her own independent opinion free from external pressure. As we have already said, this is a discretion inherent in the Court. Considerations as to how that discretion is to be exercised and what facilities are available to the Magistrate, in exercising that discretion, is his concern, subject of course to the supervision, of the Courts to which he is subordinate.

In the present case, the father of the girl in the first information report stated the age of the girl to be 14 years and in a petition filed before the learned Magistrate for medical evidence of the girl stated her age to be 15 years on the 4th of December 1961. The girl has stated that she is aged 18 years and this statement receives support from the report of the Civil Surgeon. It is true that the father challenged the finding of the Civil Surgeon and prayed for examination of the girl by the Medical Board. In view of the admission of the father himself, however, on the 4th of December 1961, that her age was 15 Sears she must be more than 16 years now. In that view, we do not think it will be just to keep the girl in custody against her will, particularly when she has not even been cited as a witness in the charge sheet.

While issuing the Rule we allowed the girl bail and she is now on bail. Regard being had to the fact mentioned above, we feel that this Rule should be made absolute and the girl allowed to continue on the same bail pending the disposal of the case.

We may further observe that our decision with regard to granting bail to Jotsna does not come in conflict with the decision of Asir and Idris, JJ., referred to earlier.

Before we part with this case, we should like to observe that the Government should come forward to establish a Neutral Home where such minors can be kept temporarily, away from criminals under the care of a responsible person, so as to exclude the possibility of any external influence.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of East Pakistan.

K. B. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.