Violations of Law by Authorities

M A Nayeem Farooqui vs. State of A.P

Filed under: Sections 2, 41, 54, 56, 57, 61, 94, 154, 155 (2), 164, 167, 176, 202 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code Sections 2(1) and 20 to 36 of the Mental Health Act Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code Article 22 of the Constitution of India
Appellant: M A Nayeem Farooqui
Respondent: State of A.P
Citation: 1998(1) ALD 103
Court: In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
Judge: S Parvatha Rao

This is a case taken up by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the basis of telegrams sent by Mr. M A Nayeem Farooqui stating that he was illegally detained in a mental hospital. He was arrested on grounds of abuse and threat because he pulled a woman's sari.

Facts

M A Nayeem Farooqui alleged that he was arrested for offences under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code on a false complaint lodged by Mrs. Surayya Jabeena that he had abused her, caught hold of her hand and threatened to pull her sari. He stated that he was arrested and was in jail for nearly a month.

Once the investigation was complete and the statements of the witnesses were taken, he was forcibly sent to a mental hospital and was kept in the prison ward. He moved an application for bail before the Sessions Judge which was dismissed. He then sent telegrams to the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh stating that he was sent to a mental hospital on a false complaint. He also expressed his willingness to furnish suitable security for releasing him on bail. The High Court took up the case.

Proceedings before the High Court:

The mental condition of Nayeem was in question in this case. The lawyers of both the parties (Farooqui and the prosecution) agreed that he needed to be examined by an independent psychiatrist. Dr. Majeed Khan, a well known psychiatrist was requested to examine him and report to the Court through the Public Prosecutor within ten days.

After the examinations and investigations, the psychiatrist stated in his report that there was no evidence of any mental disease in Nayeem. It was stated that his only problem was that of some abnormal personality features. However, he was found to be suffering from uncontrolled diabetes requiring immediate attention.

On the day when the report was submitted to the Court, the Public Prosecutor was unable to place before the Court the order, which authorised the concerned authorities to put Nayeem in a mental hospital. In view of the report from Dr. Khan the Court directed the jail authorities to take him for treatment immediately and a doctor dealing with diabetic patients was asked to report to the Court.

Once the report was submitted to the Court that Nayeem's diabetes was under control, the Court requested the Advocate General to help in forming guidelines for the Court, the Trial Judges and Police to implement in a case of this nature. Meanwhile, seeing no reason to detain Nayeem in custody the Court ordered his release.

On the next hearing date, the Court directed the Registrar to get all the records relating to his case from the Trial Court and the Government Hospital for Mental Care where he was kept before release. The records from the Trial Court showed that the Magistrate had sent Nayeem to the prison on the basis of the arguments of his lawyer.

In the Trial Court it was argued that Nayeem was harassed by the police making him insane and may be sent for medical treatment. The Magistrate sent him for medical examination with a request letter to the Residential Medical Officer of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and directed the police to produce him before the Court with the medical certificate.

On his letter, the doctor at the Osmania hospital marked 'refer to psychiatrist, mental hospital'. Based on the remarks, the Magistrate sent him to the mental hospital with direction to reproduce him before the Court after treatment. The psychiatrist replied that he was suffering from a psychiatric illness and needed treatment. However, there was no reply from the Magistrate on record.

It was also found that Nayeem had never been remanded to judicial or the police custody but however, he was detained in the police station for a considerable time. Further, it was found that when the Magistrate directed him to be taken to the mental hospital, the police and not the jail authorities had taken him to the hospital.

Observations of the Court

The Judge went through the legal provisions relating to similar situations where the person had been arrested without warrant. The provisions specifically mention that a person arrested without warrant cannot be detained in the police station for more than twenty four hours. Further, cases decided by the Supreme Court were also examined.

On examining all the relevant documents, the Judge was of the opinion that the Magistrate had erred in sending Nayeem to the mental hospital. It was observed that it seemed that the Magistrate had given the order in a casual and mechanical manner without applying his mind and without apprising himself of the law in that regard.

The Court also added that Magistrates have to be very observant and vigilant in giving orders in these cases where discretion is to be exercised and where matters of personal liberties are involved.

As Nayeem had been released, the Court did not make ay further orders and closed the case.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • C.B.I. vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141
  • Aslam Babala Desai vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 4 SCC 272
  • State of M.P. vs. Mubarak Ali, AIR 1959 SC 707
  • Directorate of Enforcement vs. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440
  • Roshan Beevi vs. Joint Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, 1984 Cri. L.J. 134 1983 MLW (Cri) 289 (Mad)
  • Niranjan Singh vs. Ram Naresh, AIR 1957 SC 389
  • Madhu Limaye's case, AIR 1969 SC 1014
  • Ram Narayan singh vs. State Of Delhi, AIR 1953 SC 277
  • Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260
  • Sheela Barse vs. State of Mahrashtra, AIR1983 SC 378
  • D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416
  • State of U.P. vs. Ram Sagar Yadao, AIR 1985 SC 416
  • Khatri (II) vs. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627
  • Veena Sethi vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 339