JUDGMENT P.C. Borooah, J. On September 3, 1979 at about 4:30 P.M. an officer attached Sanatnagar Police Station, Hyderabad, with the assistance of some officers of the Park Street Police Station arrested the petitioner Devendra Singh from his residence at 16/1, Lowdon Street. Calcutta-17. The arrest was made without any warrant. After his arrest the petitioner was taken to the park Street police Station and from there to Lalbazar Police Station Headquarters on the following day he was produced in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and on the prayer of the petitioner the learned Magistrate by an order passed by an order passed on that, viz. September 4, 1979 released him on bail with a direction to appear before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad by September 18, 1979 and to report compliance by October 12, 1979. The petitioner again moved the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on September 14, 1979 for extending the date of his appearance at Hyderabad by three week on the ground that he was ill. The learned Magistrate by an order of that date rejected the prayer. In this application the petitioner has impugned the validity of the two order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on September 4 and 14, 1979. 2. Mr. Balai Chandra ray, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the client was neither shown any warrant by the arresting police Officer non communicated the reasons for the arrest, although he had asked for the same. As such the arrest was illegal being in violation of the mandatory provisions of S.50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter the Code), under which the petitioner had to be given forthwith the grounds for his arrest. 3. According to the learned public prosecutor the power to arrest with cut a warrant has been given to a police Officer by S.41(1) of the code, which does not lay down that the reasons for the arrest has to be simultaneously communicated to the arrest person therefore the word forthwith in S.50(1) of the code should be construed to mean as soon as possible after the arrest. In this connection Mr. Mitter has asked us to consider that the word as soon as may be also occurs in sub-clauses (1) and (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution. 4. In this connection Mr. Mitter has asked us to consider that the word as soon as may be also occurs in sub-clauses (1) and (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution. 4. The question whish therefore has to be considered is whether the term ‘forthwith’ used in S.50(1) of the code has to be given its literal meaning of the must be construed in the light of the words as soon as may be which appear in Article 22(1) and (5) of the Constitution ? 5. If the word used in a statute are by themselves precise and unambiguous, they must be construed in their ordinary and natural sense. Resort cannot be taken to the Constitution to ascertain the meaning and effect of words used in an Act of Parliament or a legislature, when the Act is otherwise in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution. 6. Section 41(1) of the Code categorizes the person who can be arrested by a police Officer without a warrant or without an order from a Magistrate. About the conditions to be observed at the time of making such arrests, the section is silent Section 50(1) of the code has been enacted for this very purpose. The section reads thus : “Every Police Officer or other Person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicated to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other ground for such arrest.” 7. Section 41(1) of the Code is undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of a Police Officer empowering him to take a person into custody without a warrant and without any order from a Court. In order that this power may not be misused, the police Officer making such arrest. The language of the section is clear and unambiguous and the use of the word ‘shall forthwith communicate’ makes it mandatory on the part of the police officer making the arrest to simultaneously communicate to the person being arrested the full particulars of the offence for which the arrest is being made or other reasons for such arrest. It is also proper that a person being arrested in the manner as aforesaid must also know as to why he is being taken into custody so as t enable him to take prompt legal aid. It is also proper that a person being arrested in the manner as aforesaid must also know as to why he is being taken into custody so as t enable him to take prompt legal aid. As such forthwith must be given its natural or literal meaning i.e. simultaneous with or immediately, and for construing the meaning of this term it is not necessary to fall back on Article 22 of the Constitution. 8. In view of what has been stated above, we must hold that the petitioner’s arrest from his residence on September 3, 1979 was illegal, being in violation of the mandatory provisions of S.50(1) of the Code. The Rule is therefore made absolute and the orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on September 4 and 19, 1979 are set aside. The petitioner is directed to be discharge from his bail bond. D.C. Chakrabarti J.- I agree Rule made absolute.