R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 481, Cr. P. C. the petitioner seeks quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3567/2000 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. ( 2 ) FROM the records of the Trial Court, it appears that Crime No, 12/2000 was registered against the applicant-accused for offences punishable under Section 41 (1-4)1379. IPC. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur received an anonymous in land letter wherein it was mentioned by some public spirited (?) person that accused Shiv Das Manikpuri and Tribhuvan, both r/o Deorikhurd were residing at Naharnaii adjoining some public tank. The said letter further said that from unknown source the said informant learnt that those two persons found a bag containing hundred rupees and five hundred rupees notes, totalling Rs. , 5 lacs and the said persons, who were rik-shaw pullers by vocation, were spending the money. The said letter further said that some investigation or inquiry be made into his allegations s9 that the real facts and the truth are unearthed. It is not known as to who gave the letter either to the Sub-Inspector or to the Head Constable for making investigation but the investigation commenced on 22-6-2000. The case diary, which is annexed with the Trial Courtts record records one single proceeding dated 22-6-2000. It reads that on suspicion of the money (article) being of theft, certain inquiries were made. On 22-6-2000 Sanha No. 1044 was recorded at Police Station Torba. The said Rojnamcha report says that the Head constable 861-Dhruv Kumar Sharma on 22-6-2000 through the informer received the information that the accused Shiv parsed was keeping theft money with him. Neither the Rojndmcha nor the details says that at what time the information was received. The Rojnamcha details do not refer to the letter which was earlier received by the Superintendent of Police. The Rojnamcha further reads that after receiving the information the Head Constable Dhruv Kumar Sharma along with the staff and the witnesses made a raid on the spot. A sum of Rs. 8. 000/- was seized. The inquiries were made from the accused and the accused admitted before the police that the said amount was bad junoney. The accused thereafter was taken into custody and was kept in lock-up. A sum of Rs. 8. 000/- was seized. The inquiries were made from the accused and the accused admitted before the police that the said amount was bad junoney. The accused thereafter was taken into custody and was kept in lock-up. From the proceedings recorded by the Trial Court it appears that on 22-6-2000 the applicant was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and in his turn made an application for grant of bail. The said application was allowed and the applicant was directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum -of Rs. 3,000/with one surety in the like amount. The case was adjourned to 5-7-2000. On 5-7-2000, 17-7-2000, 8-8-2000, 7-9-2000, 18-9-2000, 10-10-2000 and 2-11-2000, at the request of the police/prosecution agency the case was adjourned for submission of the challan. On 16-11-2000, the challan was filed. On the same day, the accused made an application for release of the property in his favour. After hearing the parties, the leaped Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application. On 7-12-2000, the applicant filed this petition making a complaint that no incriminating evidence nor anything is available on the record to connect him with the alleged crime. Therefore, the proceedings pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate deserve to be quashed. ( 3 ) THIS Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant issued notice and called for the records from the Trial Court. The parties were heard to some extent and this Court thereafter thought that presence of the Sub-Inspector and the Investigating Officer, i. e. Dhruv Kumar Sharma was a must in the Court, therefore, this Court directed that these persons should remain in attendance. The case was taken up for hearing on 2-3-2001, On 2-3-2001, Dr. N. K. Shukla and Shri Nishad submitted before the Court that Dhruv Kumar Sharma was directed to remain in attendance but he was not present in the Court. As Dhruv Kumar Sharma was not present in the Court, the case was adjourned from 2-3-2001 to 12-3-2001. Today finding that Dhruv Kumar Sharmawas not in his proper uniform the Court inquired from Mr. Nishad and Dr. Shukla as to why the said Head constable was not in his uniform. Dr. Shukla and Mr. As Dhruv Kumar Sharma was not present in the Court, the case was adjourned from 2-3-2001 to 12-3-2001. Today finding that Dhruv Kumar Sharmawas not in his proper uniform the Court inquired from Mr. Nishad and Dr. Shukla as to why the said Head constable was not in his uniform. Dr. Shukla and Mr. Nishad informed the Court that on 2-3-2001 after adjournment of the case Dhruv Kumar Sharma came to the Court but as he was intoxicated and badly drunken, the matter was immediately referred to the higher Authorities, who on finding the said misconduct on the part of Dhruv Kumar Sharma immediately put him under suspension. ( 4 ) NOW. I revert back to the merits of the matter. The case diary records only one proceeding dated 22-6-2000. It does not even record that the said Head Constable had gone to make a search along with his staff and witnesses. The diary does not say that the money was seized and the accused was taken into custody. The diary does not even say that what was done in the matter after 22-6 -. 2000 to 16-11-2000 when the challan was filed. The documents which have been filed along with the challan are (1) Rojnamcha of polite station bearing No. 1044. (2) arrest memo dated 22-6-2000. (3) seizure memo dated 22-6-2000. (4) a notice issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 226-2000, (5) a receipt executed by the accused showing that a gold talisman and silver ring were received by him, and (6) anonymous inland letter. Beyond this, there are no other documents either in the case diary or in the records of the Trial Court. ( 5 ) I have already referred to the contents of the said inland letter. Nobody knew as to who made the complaint and from what sources he learnt that the accused found a bag containing a sum of Rs. 5 lacs or so. Undisputedly, no report was ever lodged by anybody either at Police Station. Torba or at Chakarbhata or at any place within the District of Bilaspur. In absence of lodgment of such a complaint, this Court would be justified in presuming that none-ever lodged any complaint that a sum of Rs. 1 lacs contained in a bag belonging to such informant or any other person was lost. Nobody lodged report that such a bag was stolen. In absence of lodgment of such a complaint, this Court would be justified in presuming that none-ever lodged any complaint that a sum of Rs. 1 lacs contained in a bag belonging to such informant or any other person was lost. Nobody lodged report that such a bag was stolen. In absence of such evidence 1 information report statements, how could Tone presume that the persons named in the inland letter had received the money or the bad money. Though the inland letter is available, in the case diary but said Head Constable Dhruv Kumar Sharma did not take notice or cognizance of the said inland letter. In the Rojnamcha he recorded that he received the information from some informant. On being asked as to who was the informant the Head Constable Dhruv Kumar Sharma was unable to give any details of the said informant. In the diary the details of the informant are conspicuously missing. Barring the letter which is available on the record and of which no cognizance was taken by Dhruv Kumar Sharma there is no evidence on the record to show or suggest that the amount seized from the accused was bad money or was theft money. Oil 22-6-2000, said Dhruv Kumar Sharma issued a notice to the present applicant requiring him to produce some evidence to show that the amount of Rs: 8. 000/- seized from him did belong to him. With the police ingenuity, the signatures of the accused were obtained on the said letter with the recital that the said amount was theft money. Though according to Rojnamcha, said Dhruv Kumar Sharma had gone to the spot with the staff and witnesses but the notice issued under Section 91. Cr. P. C. which contains the alleged confession of the accused does not bear signatures of the witnesses. The seizure was effected in presence of two witnesses, one of them Adnuram is resident of village Lokhan. P. S. Kunda. District Kawardha and the other one Bhagatram Yadav is the resident of village Bhakdi, P. S. Kunda. District Kawardha. ( 6 ) I am at a loss to understand as to how the witnesses of another district were immediately available at Police Station. Torba to Dhruv Kumar Sharma. I am also at a loss to understand as to why the local residents were not made the Panch witnesses. District Kawardha. ( 6 ) I am at a loss to understand as to how the witnesses of another district were immediately available at Police Station. Torba to Dhruv Kumar Sharma. I am also at a loss to understand as to why the local residents were not made the Panch witnesses. Not even a single statement of any witness was recorded nor any other document was prepared. The persons before whom the alleged seizure was effected were not examined as witnesses under Section 161. Cr. P. C. The said witnesses simply put their signatures on the seizure memo to wit that sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 was seized in their presence. Even if the seizure memo is taken on its face value giving every exemption in favour of the prosecution, then too from the seizure memo it would not appear that any confession was made before the Panch witnesses that either in presence or absence of the police officer the money was theft money. ( 7 ) IF the seizure memo and the arrest memo are not taken into consideration, then we are left with the notice issued under Section 91, Cr. P. C. ( 8 ) I repeatedly asked Mr. Dhruv Kumar Sharma as to who was the informant and why his statements were not recorded, Mr. Sharma firstly did not give any answer but later on said that his statements were not recorded because he did not know as to who was the informant. This is the sum total of the case diary and the investigation made under ablet (?) hands of Mr. Dhruv Kumar Sharma. ( 9 ) THE police had registered the offence punishable under Section 41 (1-4), Cr. P. C. and Section 379, IPC. ( 10 ) SECTION 41 (1) authorises a police officer to arrest any person without a warrant of arrest under peculiar particular circumstances. Sub-section (2) of Section 41 says that any officer in charge of a police station may, in the manner given in subsection (1), arrest or cause to be arrested any person, belonging to one or more of the categories of persons specified in Section 109 or Section 110. In fact, Section 41 is an enabling provision. It simply authorises a policet officer to arrest an accused without a warrant in typical/peculiar set of circumstances. ( 11 ) SECTION 379, IPC provides punishment for theft. In fact, Section 41 is an enabling provision. It simply authorises a policet officer to arrest an accused without a warrant in typical/peculiar set of circumstances. ( 11 ) SECTION 379, IPC provides punishment for theft. Theft has been defined under Section 378, IPC. Section 378, IPC reads as under: Theft - 378. Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that persons consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. Explanation 1: A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft: but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth. Explanation 2: A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft. Explanation 3: A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually morning it. Explanation 4: A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything, which in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal. Explanations 5: The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and, may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied. According to Section 378, IPC, whoever intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without the persons consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. ( 12 ) IN the present case, nobody has come before the Court or the police officer to say that the accused intended to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of the said person. Nobody says that without his consent the property was moved for such taking. In absence of some allegation worth name, that the accused with a dishonest intention to take away the property from possession of somebody without his consent moved the property, it would be impossible to hold that the accused committed offence of theft. Nobody says that without his consent the property was moved for such taking. In absence of some allegation worth name, that the accused with a dishonest intention to take away the property from possession of somebody without his consent moved the property, it would be impossible to hold that the accused committed offence of theft. For holding that somebody had committed an offence of theft, the, prosecution in its wisdom and the police in its ingenuity have to prove that property belonging to somebody was moved from his possession without his consent and the person moved the same with a dishonest intention of taking it away. I repeatedly asked Mr. Nishad and Mr. Sharma as to who said either before them or before any other person that his movable property was removed from his possession but there was no answer. If the prosecution is able to say and prove that the property did belong to a third party and the accused was found in possession of the same, only then a person can be convicted. It is most unfortunate in a civilised country like ours where the Constitution of India guarantees personal liberty and talks of equal treatment to all, the police and officers like Dbruv Kumar Sharma are showing scant regard to the constitutional provisions and the provisions of law. The arrest of the accused just on the basis of some information received front some unknown person or nobody does not speak bad against the system but tantamount to infringement of the fundamental rights of the accused. It is a sorry state-of-affairs that people like Dhruv Kumar Sharma are in the police department who are neither honest and sincere to their duties nor are showing any responsibility to their uniform nor are trying to be honest to their oath. The authority and the power is given to the police to strike at crime and not to strike on the heads of the innocent persons. It is not the whim, caprice or arbitrariness of the police officer to register a case or arrest anybody, there must be cogent reasons behind the act. The authority and the power is given to the police to strike at crime and not to strike on the heads of the innocent persons. It is not the whim, caprice or arbitrariness of the police officer to register a case or arrest anybody, there must be cogent reasons behind the act. When a police official is infringing the personal liberty of the person by arresting him, it is expected of him that he would be dispassionate, honest to the core understand the effect and impact of his actions and would also show some sincerity to the duties assigned to him. The manner in which Dhruv Kumar Sharma made the investigation, obtained the signatures of the accused on the notice issued under Section 91, Cr. P. C. and arrested him simply shows that under the uniform he was feeling that he could do anything and even crush the, constitutional provision under his authority. ( 13 ) IT is further to be seen that the challan was not filed for offences punishable under Section 379, IPC. but was filed for offences punishable under Section 403, IPC. Section 403, IPC reads as under: 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property- Whoever, dishonestly misappropriates, or converts to his own use any movable property shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. According to Section 403. IPC, whoever, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to two years or with both. Before a charge can be framed for offences, punishable under Section 403, IPC or a challan is filed for offences punishable under Section 403, IPC, it is expected not only of the police - officer but also of the prosecution agency, in public/police prosecutor that they would look into the provisions of law. The very language of Section 403, IPC would show that there must be dishonest mis-appropriation or conversion of some property by the accused to his own use. Section 403, IPC presupposes that the property does not belong to the accused it belongs to a third party and the accused dishonestly misappropriated the same or converted the same to his own use. Section 403, IPC presupposes that the property does not belong to the accused it belongs to a third party and the accused dishonestly misappropriated the same or converted the same to his own use. ( 14 ) IN the present case barring the alleged information from the unknown informant and the alleged confession made in presence of the police officer, there is nothing on the record to show or suggest that the property belonged to a third party. Illustration (a) to Section 403, IPC says that if somebody takes some property belonging to a third party in good faith believing at the time when he takes it that the property belongs to himself, then such person is not guilty of theft but if after knowing or realising his mistake dishonestly misappropriates the property to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under Section 403. IPC Illustration (a) simply says that the accused must not after realising the mistake, dishonestly misappropriate the property to his own use. For attracting the provisions of Section 403, IPC, specially Illustration (a), the prosecution must say and show that the property did belong to someone else. If the property did not belong to a third party then offence of mis-appropriation would never be made out. ( 15 ) IN the present case, it appears that the police officers simply to please one man or the other or to show that they were very smooth in their working had arrested the accused. There is nothing on the record to show or suggest that there was some foundation for bona fide belief to effect the arrest of the accused. ( 16 ) SECTION 24, IPC defines the word dishonestly. Section 24 says that whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly. Section 25 defines the word fraudulently. It says that a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. ( 17 ) IN the present case, the records do not show that the accused possessed the money with intention of causing wrongful gain to his owns elf or to any body or to cause wrongful loss to someone else. I fail to understand as to how a case for an offence punishable under Section 403. ( 17 ) IN the present case, the records do not show that the accused possessed the money with intention of causing wrongful gain to his owns elf or to any body or to cause wrongful loss to someone else. I fail to understand as to how a case for an offence punishable under Section 403. IPC could be registered against present applicant and how could he be arrested. ( 18 ) SO far as the investigation is concerned, it is not simply bad but it speaks of the motives. When an act is done in accordance with the law and the prescribed procedure of law then there is an authority of law behind it but if the same is done in such a heinous manner, infringing the personal liberty of a man, then it is always for the police or the prosecution agency to justify the action. In the present matter, the prosecution agency had no evidence with it. It had no statements of the persons, it had no report that somebody had lost money; even then the case was registered and the applicant was arrested kept in the lock-up and was produced in the Court. ( 19 ) IT would almost be impossible for anybody to account for the money, which he possesses. Speaking for myself, if somebody says or somebody asks me to explain about the source of the money, which is in my pocket. I can only say that it is a part of my salary and nothing beyond that. The currency note cannot be identified, the currency notes are marketable thing they do not belong to one man or the other. In the present case, the police agency in its wisdom has not given the details of Rs. 8,000. 00. It does not say that those were in hundred rupees notes or five hundred rupees notes. If hundred rupees or five hundred rupees notes were recovered or seized from the accused, the police agency could show some justification on the strength of the anonymous letter. Unfortunately, the seizure memo is lacking in all details and Mr. Dhruv Kumar Sharma is not relying upon the letter but is relying upon the information supplied to him by some unknown informant. Unfortunately, the seizure memo is lacking in all details and Mr. Dhruv Kumar Sharma is not relying upon the letter but is relying upon the information supplied to him by some unknown informant. ( 20 ) WHEN such cases before submission of the challan are scrutinised by the Station House Officer then it is expected of him that he would apply his wisdom to the facts of the case. It is not necessary for police to file a challan in a case, which on its face is worthless, useless and absurd. The public prosecutor police prosecutor are not puppets in the hands of the police. Their duty also is to the Courts and the public. They cannot simply file the challan before the Court without going through the contents of the said challan. It is not expected of a public prosecutor that simply because the police says that the challan must be filed. he is obliged to file the challah. After all he is a link between the police and the Court. It is justifiable to presume that he knows law. It is rational to hope that before filing the challan he goes through the contents of the same and only after recording his own satisfaction he files it. In a case like this filing of the challan against the interest of the accused shows absolute and utter non-application of mind on the part of Mr. Nishad and the said Public Prosecutor. ( 21 ) IN fact a case was cooked up and manufactured against the accused for filing the challan. In absence of any material to connect the accused with the alleged crime. I am left with no option out to quash the proceedings. The prosecution is accordingly quashed. The amount of Rs. 8,000. 00 be immediately returned back to the accused. The accused is given liberty to prosecute Dhruv Kumar Sharma and sue him for recovering damages because for his acts he had to remain in confinement. ( 22 ) PERSONAL liberty of a citizen is of the paramount consideration. The Constitution of India respects the personal liberty of a man. The liberty granted under the Constitution of India cannot be lightly infringed. None has an authority to make an in-road on the personal liberty of another; be an administrative officer or a police officer, unless there are good and sufficient reasons. The Constitution of India respects the personal liberty of a man. The liberty granted under the Constitution of India cannot be lightly infringed. None has an authority to make an in-road on the personal liberty of another; be an administrative officer or a police officer, unless there are good and sufficient reasons. When the law permits a police officer to arrest a man without a warrant, then he must pose a question to himself that the suspicion nursed by him is sufficient to provide the foundation or the evidence in hand is good enough to put fetters to the personal liberty of a man. In the matter of Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others the Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of personal liberty of a man. The Supreme Court in paragraph 2 of its judgment has observed as under: Police officers who are the custodians of law and order should have the greatest respect for the personal liberty of citizens and should not flout the laws by stooping to such bizarre acts of lawlessness. Custodians of law and order should not become depredators of civil liberties. Their duty is to protect and not to abduct. In the said matter the Supreme Court finding that the petitioner before them was unnecessarily arrested and his constitutional rights were violated with impunity held that the Courts have right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs or otherwise. Their Lordships further observed that when a person comes to the Court with the complaint that he was arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In the said matter their Lord ships observed that the Court has jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. In the Matter of Bhimsingh (supra ). Their Lordships awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 as compensation to the, said victim. ( 23 ) IN the matter of Ravikant Paul v. The Director General of Police. State of Maharashtra and Others2, while considering the question of handcuffing and roping of under-trial prisoner and then parading him through the streets of city for investigation without any justification in disregard to rules of Bombay Police Manual. 00 as compensation to the, said victim. ( 23 ) IN the matter of Ravikant Paul v. The Director General of Police. State of Maharashtra and Others2, while considering the question of handcuffing and roping of under-trial prisoner and then parading him through the streets of city for investigation without any justification in disregard to rules of Bombay Police Manual. Their Lordships awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 as compensation to the said petitioner. Life liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes life with dignity and liberty with dignity. Liberty must mean freedom from humiliation and unnecessary false/mischievous arrest, indignities at the hands of the Authorities would include police excesses in a given case. ( 24 ) I have no doubt in holding that in the present case the petitioner was subjected to police atrocities and excesses. Without any legal material he was arrested, put in the lock-up and was produced in the Court. He was subjected to unwarranted humiliation and indignity, which cannot be done to any citizen of India, irrespective of the fact from where he comes. The citizen is simply a citizen. It cannot be said that the rights of the people who are sitting on higher pedestal are more in comparison to the people who are coming from lower strata of the society. The action in the present case on the part of the police was wholly unwarranted and unjustified and was taken disregarding the requirements of law. Dhruv Kumar Sharma- acted outside the scope of authority vested in him under the law. ( 25 ) EXERCISING my powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and my inherent powers under Section 482. Cr. P. C. I hereby direct that Mr. Dhruv Kumar Sharma. Head Constable, shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 to the present applicant as compensation for false/mischievous of illegal arrest and filing cooked-up and manufactured challan. The said amount of compensation shall be deposited by him in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bilaspur within two weeks from today. If the said amount is not deposited by him within the said period the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall require the Director General of Police. Government of Chhattisgarh to deposit the said amount with liberty to recover the same from Dhruv Kumar Sharma. The Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bilaspur within two weeks from today. If the said amount is not deposited by him within the said period the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall require the Director General of Police. Government of Chhattisgarh to deposit the said amount with liberty to recover the same from Dhruv Kumar Sharma. The Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bilaspur shall lodge a complaint against Dhruv Kumar Sharma in a competent Court of law against the illegal actions of said Dhruv Kumar Sharma in keeping the applicant in custody on a false charge and registering false offence against the applicant, knowing well that no evidence was available on the record to charge-sheet, the applicant. In the result, the petition is allowed. A copy of this order be immediately sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bilaspur and the Director General of Police. Raipur. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .