# In order to prevent violations of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 54/IX-f-69/Admn
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1992-10-22
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 54/IX-f-69/Admn
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-order-to-prevent-violations-of-the-central-excise-and-salt-act-1944-and-the-163650
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

378
In order to prevent violations of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and the
Central Excise Rules, 1944, when a subordinate court is about to pass orders for the
disposal of goods subject to central excise duties, it should notify the fact to the nearest
Superintendent of the Central Excise. The places at which Superintendents of the Central
Excise are stationed are mentioned in the list given below:
LIST OF SUPERINTENDENTS IN THE CENTRAL EXCISE,
COLLECTORATE, ALLAHABAD, U.P.
1
Superintendent of Central Excise,
Allahabad
2
Ditto
Banaras
3
Ditto
Azamgarh
4
Ditto
Gorakhpur
5
Ditto
Bareilly
6
Ditto
Moradabad
7
Ditto
Rampur
8
Ditto
Shahjahanpur
9
Ditto
Budaun
10
Ditto
Lucknow
11
Ditto
Gonda
12
Ditto
Faizabad
13
Ditto
Sitapur
14
Ditto
Farrukhabad
15
Ditto
Kannauj
16
Ditto
Kasganj
17
Ditto
Mainpuri
18
Ditto
Kaimganj
19
Ditto
Kanpur (Central)
20
Ditto
Kanpur (Muffasil)
21
Ditto
Kanpur (Old)
22
Ditto
Jhansi
23
Superintendent of central Excise
Agra
24
Ditto
Mathura
25
Ditto
Meerut
26
Ditto
Muzaffarnagar
27
Ditto
Bulandshahr
28
Ditto
Aligarh
29
Ditto
Dehradun
59.
ARREST AND DETENTION OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS
(i) Arrest and detention of Judicial Officers-Guidelines
C.L. No. 54/IX-f-69/Admn.'G' dated October 22, 1992
I am directed to enclose herewith a copy each of letter No. F.No.L.19017/3/92Jus, dated 13.4.92/23.4.1992 a copy of letter No. L.l9017/4/90-Jus., dated
26.4.1990/2.5.1990 from the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice
(Department of Justice) New Delhi with a copy of letter No. VII-11017/15/88- G.P.A.II,
dated 4.10.1988, and D.O. No.VI-25013/42/89-G.P.A.II, dated 27.3.92/31.3.1992 from
379
the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi
regarding use of handcuffing by the Police and on the subject noted above, for
information and necessary compliance.
I am to add that the contents of this letter and enclosures may kindly be brought to
the notice of all judicial officers working under your supervision for their information
and future guidance.
Arrest and detention of Judicial Officers-Guidelines' to Registrars
L.No.F.No.L. 19017/3/92-Jus, Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice
(Department of Justice) dated 3.4.1992/23.4.1992
C.No. 190117/4/90-Jus. dated 26.4.1990/3.5.1990
I am directed to invite your attention to the above cited communication of this
Department (copy enclosed) and to say that the Supreme Court in its Judgement
delivered on 11.9.1991 in Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 517, 518 and 523-27 of 1989
Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court Delhi v. State of Gujarat and others
has laid down certain guidelines in the case of arrest and detention of a Judicial Officer.
These guidelines have been circulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Home
Secretaries of all States and Union Territories Administration vide DO letter no. VI25013/42/89-G.P.A.II, dt. 31.3.1992 for compliance. A copy of the same is attached for
information and for circulation to all concerned.
2.
A perusal of the Judgment of the Supreme Court will also show that the Apex
Court has also observed that
"No Judicial Officer should visit a Police Station on his own except in connection
with his official and judicial duties and functions. If it is necessary for a Judicial
Officer or a Subordinate Judicial Officer to visit the Police Station in connection
with his official duties, he must do so with prior intimation of his visit to the
District and Sessions Judge."
3.
It is requested that the above observations of the Supreme Court may also kindly
be brought to the notice of all concerned including the Subordinate Courts under the
jurisdiction of your High Court for compliance.
Practice of handcuffing the arrested persons by police as a matter of routine-
guidelines regarding.
L.No.L.19017/4/90-Jus.Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice
(Department of Justice) dated 26.4.1990/2.5.1990
I am directed to invite your attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1980 SC 526) wherein the
indiscriminate use of handcuffs by the law enforcing agencies has not been approved by
the Supreme Court. The Honourable Court has also laid down suitable guidelines in the
matter. The directions of the Supreme Court had been circulated to all State Government
by Ministry of Home Affairs vide their letter No. VII-11017/15/88- G.P.A. II, dated
4.10.1988 (Copy enclosed) for compliance. A perusal of the judgment will show that a
duty has also been cast on the judiciary as well for ensuring proper implementation of its
directives.
380
I am therefore, to request you kindly to bring these directives of the Supreme Court
to the notice of all Subordinate Courts under the jurisdiction of your High Court for
proper compliance.
Use of handcuffs-guidelines regarding
L.No. VII-11017/15/88-GPA.II Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,
dated 4.10.88
I am directed to say that this Ministry has issued instructions on the use of
handcuffs by police from time to time. It was stressed in this Ministry's letter No. F
.2/l3/57-P .IV dated 26th July, 1957 (copy enclosed) that the use of handcuffs should be
restricted to cases where the prisoner was a desperate character or there were reasonable
grounds to believe that he would use violence or attempt to escape or where there were
other similar reasons. While reiterating these instructions, it was impressed upon the State
Government vide this Ministry's letter No.8/70/74-GPA.I dated 8th November, 1974
(copy enclosed) that there should ordinarily be no occasion to handcuffs the prisoners
such as Satyagrahis, persons occupying good positions in public life and professionals
like journalists, jurists, doctors, writers, educationists. The instructions were reiterated in
this ministry's D.O.No. 15/38/76-G.P.A.II dated 29.7.1976 (copy enclosed).
2.
Further instructions on the use of handcuffs by Police were communicated to
State Government in a letter-dated 22.8.1978 (copy enclosed) written by the then Prime
Minister to State Chief Ministers. In this letter, the Prime Minister suggested that
handcuffs should not be used except where there was a reasonable apprehension of
violence, escape or reasons and, in no case, merely to humiliate or harass a person.
Generally, even such apprehensions would be justified only where such a person is
suspected of being involved in any grave non-bailable offence, has a history of previous
conviction for serious offence, or is a known bad character. There should also be a clear
prohibition in the rules of the use of handcuffs in respect of persons who are bed-ridden
in hospital, old and infirm, women prisoners, juveniles and prisoners involved in Civil
Proceedings. Persons accused of violating prohibitory orders in the context of political or
other similar demonstrations should also not be subjected to handcuffs.
3.
The Supreme Court of India, however, in its order of Writ Petition (CRL) No.163
of 1988 dated 4.8.1988 has directed that rules or guidelines may be issued in conformity
with the judgment of that Court in a case of Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi
Administration (SCR 855 of 1980) as regards the circumstances in which handcuffing of
the accused should be resorted to. While declaring Rule 26.21A and 26.22 of Chapter
XXVI of the Punjab Police Manual as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution, the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for handcuffing the
prisoners:
(i)
That no prisoner shall be handcuffed or fettered routinely or merely for
the convenience of the Custodian or escort.
(ii)
That it is arbitrary and irrational to classify prisoners for purposes of
handcuffs, into 'B' Class and ordinary class. No one shall be fettered in
any form based on superior class differentia as the law treats them
equally.
381
(iii) Handcuffing of prisoners should be resorted only in exceptional
circumstances where there is a clear and present danger of escape or
where the concerned accused is so violent that he cannot otherwise be
secured. Handcuffing may be avoided by increasing the strength of the
armed escort or by taking prisoners in well-protected vans.
(iv)
It is only in exceptional circumstances where there is no other reasonable
way of preventing the escape of the prisoner that recourse to handcuffing
him may be taken. Even in such extreme cases where handcuffs have to
be put on, escorting authority must record contemporaneously the reasons
for doing so. The belief in this behalf must be based on antecedents,
which must be recorded, and proneness to violence must be authentic.
Vague surmises or general averments that the under trial is a crook or
desperado, rowdy or maniac cannot suffice. Merely because the offence is
serious, the inference of escape proneness or disparate character does not
follow.
(v)
These recorded reasons must be shown to the Presiding Judge and his
approval should be taken. Once the Court directs that the handcuffs are
not to be used, no escorting authority should over-rule this correction.
4.
It is requested that the above guidelines may kindly be brought to the notice of all
concerned through the Directors General of Police and Inspectors General of Prisons. It
may kindly be ensured that the instructions are scrupulously observed.
5.
A copy of the instructions issued in the matter may kindly be endorsed to this
Ministry.
D.O.No. Vl-25013/42/89-GPA-ll Bharat Sarkar/ Government of India
Grih Mantralaya/Ministry or Home Affairs dated 27.3.1992/31.3.1992
Please refer to this Ministry's instructions regarding use of handcuffing by the
Police issued vide this Ministry's letter No. VII-11017/15/88-GPA-II, dated 4.10.88.
Recently the Supreme Court of India in its Judgment in a Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
517,518 and 523-27 of 1989-Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tiz Hazari Court, Delhi
v. State of Gujarat and others, have laid down following guidelines which should be
followed in the case of arrest and detention of Judicial Officers:
(a)
If a judicial officer is to be arrested for some offence, it should be done
under intimation to the District Judge or the High Court as the case may
be.
(b)
If facts and circumstances necessitate immediate arrest of a judicial officer
of the subordinate judiciary, a technical or formal arrest may be affected.
(c)
The fact of such arrest should be immediately communicated to the
District and Sessions Judge of the concerned district and the Chief Justice
of the High Court.
(d)
The Judicial Officers so arrested shall not be taken to a police station,
without the prior order or directions of the District and Sessions Judge of
the concerned District, if available.
382
(e)
Immediate facilities shall be provided to the Judicial Officer for
communication with his family members, legal advisers and judicial
officers, including the District and Sessions Judge.
(f)
No statement of a judicial officer who is under arrest be recorded nor any
panchnama be drawn up nor any medical tests be conducted except in the
presence of the Legal Adviser of the Judicial Officers concerned or
another judicial officers of equal or higher rank, if available.
(g)
There should be no handcuffing of a judicial officer. If, however, violent
resistance to arrest is offered or there is imminent need to effect physical
arrest in order to avert danger to life and limb, the persons resisting arrest
may be over powered and handcuffed. In such a case, immediate report
shall be made to the District and Sessions Judge concerned and also to the
Chief Justice of the High Court. But the burden would be on the police to
establish the necessity for effecting physical arrest and handcuffing the
judicial officer and if it is established that the physical arrest and
handcuffing of the judicial officers was unjustified, the police officers
causing or responsible for such arrest and handcuffing would be guilty of
misconduct and would also be personally liable for compensation and/or
damages as may be summarily determined by the High Court.
2.
The above guidelines are not exhaustive but those are minimum safeguards,
which must be observed in case of arrest of a judicial officer. These guidelines should be
implemented by the State Government.
3.
The State Government/Union Territories Administration are requested to bring
these guidelines to the notice of the concerned officers for compliance. A copy of the
instructions issued by the States/ Union Territories may also be forwarded to this
Ministry.
60.
CHILD LABOUR (PROHIBITION AND REGULATION) ACT, 1986
C.L. No. 38/Admn.(G) VIIf-256 dated April 12, 1994
(i)
Imposing of lower penalties than those prescribed under the Child Labour
(P&R) Act, 1986.
It has come to the notice of the Court that Sections 14 and 15 of the Child Labour
(P&R) Act, 1986 are not being complied with properly.
The Court has, therefore, been pleased to direct you to impress upon all the
Presiding Officers working under you to make proper compliance of Sections 14 and 15
of the Child Labour (P&R) Act, 1986 while awarding punishment in cases concerning
Child Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986.
61. COMMUNICATION OF ORDERS OF SUPREME COURT
C.L. No. 68/VIIb-47/Admn.(G) dated July 6, 1990
(i) Communication of orders of Supreme Court of India in Criminal matters
I am directed to enclose herewith a copy of D.O. letter No. l/89-C/Registrar (J),
dated June 18, 1990, on the above subject, and to say that in order to prevent fake and