# V.L.ROHLUA v. DY. COMMR. AIJAL, DISlT. MlZO - **Citation:** [1971] 2 S.C.R. 503 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1970-09-29 - **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 238 of 1970 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-l-rohlua-v-dy-commr-aijal-dislt-mlzo-5157 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote V.L.ROHLUA v. DY. COMMR. AIJAL, DISlT. MlZO September 29, 1970 i03 B [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J, M. SHELAT, G. K. MITTER, c D l!l F G H C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J The Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958, ss. 4 and 5-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s. 344-Mi;;o hostile arrested by armed forces under s. 4 of 1958 Act-Handed over to ci1·i1 authorities after two months-Whether this was done lVith the least pos .. sible delay within meaning.of s. 5-Remc.nd orders by Magistrate exceeding I 5 days-Code of Criminal Procedure no~ applicable to area-Spirit of Code only applies-Re1na11d orders exceeding 15· days l\:hen not un~ conscionably long do not vitiate detention. The petitionj'r wa> a resident of Mizo District. He was arrested by the Armed Folrces under s .. 4(c) of the Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958. He was handed over to the Civil Authorities on March 2, 1968, i.e., about two months after his arrest. Thereafter two criminal cases covering a wide range of offences under the Assam Maintenance. of Public Order Act, the Arms Act and several sections of the Indian Penal Code were started against him. He was remanded to Judicial custody from time to time the period of remand being on each occasion more than 15 days. He filed a p~tition for a writ of /1abtas corpus in the High Court and on its dismissal he .filed a writ petition in this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The questions that fell for consideration were : (i) whether his detention was illegal on the ground !hat the armed forces had not handed him over to the civil ,,uthorities with the 'least possible delay' as required by s. 5 of the 1958 Act; (ii) whether the dotention of the petitioner could be held to be illegal because (a) tl.e remand orders were for more than 15 days and (b) there was a break in the remand orders while the petition under Art. 3~ was J'!'Dding in this Court . . HELD: (i) Under s. 5 of the Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special.Powers Act the person arrested has to be made over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay. together with the circumstances occasioning the airest. What is the least possible delay in a case depends upon the facts, that is to say, how. where and in what circumstances the arrest was affected. In the present case the petitioner was, according to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, connected with the Mizo hostiles who were waging \\'ar against India.. It was, therefore, necessary to question him about his associates his stores of arms, and like matters. The difficulty of the terrain, the prese~ce. of hostile el~ments in the area must be considered in ihis connection. Although the Armed Forces surrendered the petitione'r lo the Civil authorities after •ome delay, which was not intended by the law, !here was not too much delay. [506 A-DJ (ii) The Criminal Proc~du.re <:ode is not _applica~le by reas9n of :he sixth Schedule to the Constitution, in the area m question. Only the >p1r1t of the Cri!"inal Procedure~de applies. !h~refore strict COJ!lP}iance "tth the provisions of Art, 34 could not be mS1sted on. [506 E-F] S/tlte of Nagalarrd v. tti>n Singh, iiJ966] 3 S.C.R. 830, referred to. 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 2 S.C.R. The period of remand in the present case was each time mdre than 15 days but not so unconscionably fang as to violate the spirit of the Code. There was a gap when the petitioner was in the custody of this court but no request was made for his release then. He was remanded to the custody of tlte Magistrate by this Court and thereafter his detention could not be held to be illegal. [406 G] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 238 of 1970. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Hardev Singh, for the appellant. Naunit Lal, for the respondent. ## Text V.L.ROHLUA v. DY. COMMR. AIJAL, DISlT. MlZO September 29, 1970 i03 B [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J, M. SHELAT, G. K. MITTER, c D l!l F G H C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J The Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958, ss. 4 and 5-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s. 344-Mi;;o hostile arrested by armed forces under s. 4 of 1958 Act-Handed over to ci1·i1 authorities after two months-Whether this was done lVith the least pos .. sible delay within meaning.of s. 5-Remc.nd orders by Magistrate exceeding I 5 days-Code of Criminal Procedure no~ applicable to area-Spirit of Code only applies-Re1na11d orders exceeding 15· days l\:hen not un~ conscionably long do not vitiate detention. The petitionj'r wa> a resident of Mizo District. He was arrested by the Armed Folrces under s .. 4(c) of the Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958. He was handed over to the Civil Authorities on March 2, 1968, i.e., about two months after his arrest. Thereafter two criminal cases covering a wide range of offences under the Assam Maintenance. of Public Order Act, the Arms Act and several sections of the Indian Penal Code were started against him. He was remanded to Judicial custody from time to time the period of remand being on each occasion more than 15 days. He filed a p~tition for a writ of /1abtas corpus in the High Court and on its dismissal he .filed a writ petition in this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The questions that fell for consideration were : (i) whether his detention was illegal on the ground !hat the armed forces had not handed him over to the civil ,,uthorities with the 'least possible delay' as required by s. 5 of the 1958 Act; (ii) whether the dotention of the petitioner could be held to be illegal because (a) tl.e remand orders were for more than 15 days and (b) there was a break in the remand orders while the petition under Art. 3~ was J'!'Dding in this Court . . HELD: (i) Under s. 5 of the Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special.Powers Act the person arrested has to be made over to the officer in charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay. together with the circumstances occasioning the airest. What is the least possible delay in a case depends upon the facts, that is to say, how. where and in what circumstances the arrest was affected. In the present case the petitioner was, according to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, connected with the Mizo hostiles who were waging \\'ar against India.. It was, therefore, necessary to question him about his associates his stores of arms, and like matters. The difficulty of the terrain, the prese~ce. of hostile el~ments in the area must be considered in ihis connection. Although the Armed Forces surrendered the petitione'r lo the Civil authorities after •ome delay, which was not intended by the law, !here was not too much delay. [506 A-DJ (ii) The Criminal Proc~du.re <:ode is not _applica~le by reas9n of :he sixth Schedule to the Constitution, in the area m question. Only the >p1r1t of the Cri!"inal Procedure~de applies. !h~refore strict COJ!lP}iance "tth the provisions of Art, 34 could not be mS1sted on. [506 E-F] S/tlte of Nagalarrd v. tti>n Singh, iiJ966] 3 S.C.R. 830, referred to. 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 2 S.C.R. The period of remand in the present case was each time mdre than 15 days but not so unconscionably fang as to violate the spirit of the Code. There was a gap when the petitioner was in the custody of this court but no request was made for his release then. He was remanded to the custody of tlte Magistrate by this Court and thereafter his detention could not be held to be illegal. [406 G] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 238 of 1970. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Hardev Singh, for the appellant. Naunit Lal, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C. J. The petitioner Rohlua has applied for his release by the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus. Previously he had applied to the High Court of Assam & Nagaland (Misc. Criminal Case No. 506 of 1969) but his petition was dismissed. The facts are as follows : The petitioner is admittedly an inhabitant of Bakupi in the Mizo District. He was arrested by the Armed Forces under s. 4(c) of the Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958. He was handed over to the Civil Authorities on March 2, 1968. Sinc'e then two criminal cases have been started against him on November 10, 1969 and February 26, 1970. They cover a wide range of offences uader the Assam Maintenance of Public · Order Act, the Arms Act, several sections of the Indian P.:nal Code. etc. The cases are pending against him. The petitioner's c01nplaint is that he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest and detention, that no warrant was shown to him and that he was denied the right of making representations. · His further grievance is that the cases have not been tried and he is held in me·ga1 custody without obtaining proper remands from Magistrates. A B c D E F These allegations are controverted in counter-affidavits by Mr. D. B. Poon the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mizo District, Aijal. According to him the petJtioner was arrested without ·warrant by the Armed Forces as is aut. horised under s. 4(c) of the G Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Powers Act. The petitioner was informed of the grounds of his arrest and as soon as he was handed over to the Civil Authorities he was prosecuted for the offences. The petitioner was also given ·the grounds of det~ntion along with the detention order on May 9, 1968. He could have represented to the Advisory Board but did not make a representation. . Since then the petitioner made a confession which is also exhibited in the case but as he is to be tried we do not refer to it here. H v. L. ROHLUA v. DY. COMMR. AIJAL (Hidayatu/lah, C.J.) 505 A The State authorities have produced the order-sheets from the cases. From them it appears that the petitioner was charged in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate on March 3, 1968 and was kept in judicial custody. He has since been remanded to jail custody from time to time.· On July 28, this Court in the Habeas Corpus petition ordered his production in Court and apB pointed Mr. Hardev Singh Advocate as Amicus Curiae. The petitioner then filed a second affidavit on August 3, 1970. In that affidavit he has alleged that he was handed over to the civil authorities by the Armed Forces after 2 months from his arrest, his confessional statement was obtained at gun-point, that c no order was served on him under the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1953, that he was tortured, that the detention order was vague and that as the remand order expired on July 18, 1970 his further detention became illegal. D In reply to this another affidavit has been filed by Mr. D. B. Poon. According to him the petitioner was handed over to the civil authorities on March 2, 1968 and the petitioner was produced before a Magistrate the very next day. The order of remand made on that day has. been filed. The last order of remand was made on June 20, 1970 and it was till July 18, 1970. Since then another order of remand has been produced and the E remand is to run till September 28, 1970: During the time he has been in the custody of this Court there has been a break in the orders of remand as will appear presently. The Additional D~puty Commissioner also stated that owing to shortage of accommodation at Aijal Jail t.he petitioner was kept in Dibrugarh Jail till his production in this Court. In a supplementary affidavit F the Additional Deputy Commissioner has explained that the petitioner was held for some time by the Armed Forces for inter- . rogation at the Security Force Head Quarters because of his connection with activities against the security of the State and his close association with the outlawed Mizo National Fron( Army and with Pakistan, that before the last order of remand expired the. petiti~ner was put in the custody of this Court and that now G he 1s agam on a proper remand hy the Magistrate in the original custody. The affidavit also states that the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to the Mizo District and the spirit of the Code has been followed in this case, that the petitio.ner was prod~ce