JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rommel, learned counsel as well as Mr. Kh. Mani, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Y. Johnson, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Mr. Viscount, Jr. G.A. as well as Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Addl. Advocate General, Manipur assisted by Ms. N. Savitri, learned Jr. G.A. for the State respondents. 2. One of the most delicate functions of the Court in a democracy which is based on rule of law, is to strike the fine balance between the rights of the citizens and the responsibility of the State to ensure maintenance of law and order and preservation of society. This task has become more onerous with the widening of the horizon and scope of the human rights, vis-a-vis the increasing challenges faced by the State to maintain law and order and preserve the society. Any overzealous tilt towards the individual rights may lead to anarchy and undue emphasis on the power of the State may tend towards authoritarianism. In this unique and dynamic role of the judiciary, fortunately, for this country, broad guidelines have been delineated by our written Constitution which lays down the scope of the rights and duties of the individuals and the power and responsibilities of the State, and interplay between the individual rights and obligations of the State. However, human experience always throws up new challenges and dilemmas which require equally innovative approach to deal with such problems. In discharging this unique role by the judiciary, particularly the constitutional Courts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court through its creative interpretation, in course of its stellar functioning during last more than 60 years has shed light on various contours of the constitutional law which would help in maintaining this balance between the rights of the individuals and the obligations of the State. 3. The present case is yet another instance where a citizen of this country has come knocking door of this Court alleging that his legal and fundamental rights have been violated by the State to which the State has responded contending that in upholding the unique role of maintaining law and order and integrity of the nation, considering the seriousness of the crime alleged to have been committed, stringent effective measures need to be taken to deal with such situation. 4. 4. The petitioner who was the Convenor of the Joint Committee on Inner Line Permit System (JCILPS) has approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising grievances, inter-alia, that his rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been violated, apart from the infraction of section 82 and other provisions of the Cr.P.C. in issuing the impugned Press Note dated 02.06.2016, attaching the tag of “Wanted” using the terminology of “criminal” and offering rewards for information leading to his arrest on the ground that he is “absconding”. The aforesaid impugned Press Note, being the foundation of the grievance of the petitioner, is reproduced herein-below for better appreciation of the issues involved in this writ petition. “PRESS NOTE WANTED Subject : Announcement of Cash Reward of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh) only for arrest of Wanted Criminal. A criminal case has been registered at Singjamei Police Station, Imphal West District against Khomdram Ratan (Convenor JCILPS) S/o (Late) Khomdram Ibotombi, a resident of Singjamei Wangma Kshetri Leikai, under the jurisdiction of Imphal West District Police, for being a member of a banned outfit United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and for indulging in prejudicial activities against the state, promoting social unrest and enmity among different groups of people living in Manipur in the recent past. The individual is absconding and Imphal West District police are making all out efforts to arrest him at the earliest. A cash reward of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh) only is hereby announced through media for any individual who may provide information leading to the arrest of Khomdram Ratan. The following officers may be contacted at the numbers given below:- (i) SP, Imphal West District : 9436023018 (ii) Addl. SP (Ops), Imphal West : 9862497906 (iii) Addl. SP (L/O), Imphal West : 9402882416 (iv) OC/Singjamei PS : 9436026170 Identity of the informant will be kept a secret. Imphal, The 2nd June, 2016 Sd/- PRO Manipur Police Department.” 5. Mr. Kh. Mani, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen of India and an Advocate, being a bona-fide member of the All Manipur Bar Association (AMBA) and a simple peace-loving person having no criminal antecedent whatsoever in the past. Imphal, The 2nd June, 2016 Sd/- PRO Manipur Police Department.” 5. Mr. Kh. Mani, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen of India and an Advocate, being a bona-fide member of the All Manipur Bar Association (AMBA) and a simple peace-loving person having no criminal antecedent whatsoever in the past. It has been stated that he has been actively involved in social issues facing the State and has been voluntarily working as a Joint Convenor of the Joint Committee on Inner Line Permit System (JCILPS) which has been spearheading the movement demanding implementation of Inner Line Permit System in the State of Manipur. It has been submitted that in view of the mass movement launched by the Committee, an agreement was signed between the Government of Manipur and leaders of the Joint Committee on Inner Line Permit System (JCILPS) on 25th August, 2015 by which the State Government agreed to enact appropriate laws incorporating various demands of the people of Manipur for the protection of the people of Manipur and other related issues faced by the State. The petitioner was one of the signatories of the aforesaid agreement signed between the Government of Manipur and leaders of the JCILPS. Thereafter, 3 (three) bills, namely, (i) The Protection of Manipur Peoples Bill, 2015 (ii) The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015 and (iii) The Manipur Shop and Establishment (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015 were passed unanimously by the State Legislative Assembly which were sent for the assent of the Governor of Manipur who in turn referred to the President of India for his consideration. It has been submitted that there had been certain delay in giving assent to the said bills by the President. Ultimately, one bill was withheld by the President while the other two were kept for consideration by the President. It was in that background the JCILPS was spearheading the movement demanding the implementation of the Inner Line Permit System (ILPS) in Manipur. It has been contended that while the petitioner was engaged in various democratic forms of agitations, the petitioner came to know that on 2nd June, 2016 certain interested persons with ulterior motives had circulated a morphed picture of the petitioner in the social media showing him to be associated with an underground banned organisation, United National Liberation Front (UNLF). It has been contended that while the petitioner was engaged in various democratic forms of agitations, the petitioner came to know that on 2nd June, 2016 certain interested persons with ulterior motives had circulated a morphed picture of the petitioner in the social media showing him to be associated with an underground banned organisation, United National Liberation Front (UNLF). In that photograph the petitioner has been shown along with 4 others holding a flag purportedly belonging to the banned organisation of UNLF with raised hand allegedly taking oath of allegiance. The petitioner states that when he came to know about the uploading of the said fabricated picture, he convened a press conference at the office of the JCILPS located at Keishampat, Sega Road, Imphal West at around 6.30 pm of the same day on 02.06.2016 clarifying that the said uploaded picture of him which went viral on the social media allegedly taking oath of allegiance holding a flag of a banned underground organisation, UNLF was fabricated with intent to sabotage the ongoing movement for enactment of a constitutional safeguard for protection of the indigenous people of the land. He also clarified that he is ready to face any trial but decried the attempt to tarnish his image and project the popular movement in poor light. He further contends that on the next day, the petitioner came to know from various local newspapers including the Imphal Free Press newspaper that a criminal case has been registered against him for being a member of the banned organisation United National Liberation Front (UNLF). The said newspaper carried a Press Note issued by the Public Relation Officer of the Manipur Police making an announcement of cash reward of Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid to any individual who may provide information leading to arrest of the petitioner, by charging the petitioner, to be a member of a banned outfit United National Liberation Front (UNLF) and for indulging in prejudicial activities against the State, promoting social unrest and enmity among different groups of people living in Manipur in the recent past and also that the petitioner is absconding and the police are making all efforts to arrest him at earliest. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Press Note issued by the PRO of the Manipur Police, reproduced above, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid Press Note. 6. Mr. Kh. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Press Note issued by the PRO of the Manipur Police, reproduced above, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid Press Note. 6. Mr. Kh. Mani, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds in challenging the legality of this Press Note. Firstly, he contends that the aforesaid Press Note was issued in complete violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure more particularly, Section 82 thereof. Mr. Kh. Mani submits that the aforesaid Press Note/release amounts to issuing a proclamation treating the petitioner to be an absconder in which event, such a proclamation could be issued only in compliance with Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. Section 82 provides for proclamation for an absconding person. It states that if any Court has reason to believe that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. 7. It has been submitted that before invoking the aforesaid provision of Section 82 there must have been a warrant issued by the Court for arrest of the person concerned under Section 73 of the Cr.P.C., which provides for issue of a warrant at the direction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class for the arrest of any escaped convict, proclaimed offender or of any person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. Such a warrant can be endorsed to any police officer for execution as provided under Section 74 of the Cr.P.C.. It has thus been contended that only after the provisions of Sections 73 and 74 had been invoked for issue of warrant of arrest and when such person against whom such warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, the Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time as mentioned in Section 82. 8. Mr. Kh. 8. Mr. Kh. Mani, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there is nothing on the record to show that the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the concerned Magistrate of the first class had directed issue of warrant to any police officer for arrest of the petitioner under Section 73 and 74 of the Cr.P.C. and since no such warrant has been issued by the Court against the petitioner, the question of absconding or concealing himself to avoid execution of warrant does not arise so as to warrant invoking Section 82 of Cr.P.C. 9. Mr. Kh. Mani further submits that the petitioner is a well known public figure who was working as the Convenor of the JCILPS and was always available to the public and there was no occasion where the police had ever tried to contact him, not to mention of any attempt to arrest him in connection with the case. It has been stated that the petitioner was available throughout the day on 2nd June, 2016 when the said FIR case was registered and in fact, he had convened a press release in the evening of 2nd June, 2016 condemning the uploading of fake photograph in the social media network unaware of the fact that an FIR had been registered against the petitioner in connection with the said morphed picture uploaded. Hence, the question of evading arrest by the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, issuance of such impugned Press Note is unwarranted and illegal. It has been contended that in fact, the same was issued only to tarnish the image of the petitioner and project the popular movement in the wrong light when he was spearheading the movement. 10. It has been submitted by Mr. Kh. Mani, learned Senior counsel that any proclamation for absconding can be issued by competent court as provided under Section 82 of the Act and not by the police. In the present case, the impugned Press Note by which the petitioner has been proclaimed to be an absconder was issued by the police without any authority and power under the law. Mani, learned Senior counsel that any proclamation for absconding can be issued by competent court as provided under Section 82 of the Act and not by the police. In the present case, the impugned Press Note by which the petitioner has been proclaimed to be an absconder was issued by the police without any authority and power under the law. Proclamation regarding an absconding person can be issued by the Court only after satisfaction by the Court that the warrant issued by the Court could not be executed on account of absconding or concealment by the person against whom the warrant was issued, and that too after publishing the same requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time. However, the police without following the due process as provided under Section 82 and other relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. issued the Press Note, which is virtually a proclamation alleging abscondance by the petitioner. Therefore, the aforesaid proclamation in the form of Press Note issued by the PRO of Manipur Police is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. 11. Mr. Mani, Ld. Senior Counsel also submits that the aforesaid impugned Press Note has violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, restricting his freedom of movement and by depriving his personal liberty without following procedures established by law. He submits that by the aforesaid Press Note the freedom of the petitioner to move around has been curtailed thus violating his right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. Article 21 directs that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedures established by law. He contends that, in the present case, the Press Note has deprived his personal liberty without following the procedure established by law, which is prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. 12. Mr. Kh. Mani has also submitted that Rule 72 of the Assam Police Manual defines who is an “absconder” and lays down the manner for their search and arrest as reproduced herein-below: “72. Mr. Kh. Mani has also submitted that Rule 72 of the Assam Police Manual defines who is an “absconder” and lays down the manner for their search and arrest as reproduced herein-below: “72. Definition of absconders and the method for their search and arrest.-(i) Absconders:- For the purposes of absconders' register Form No. 163, Schedule XL (A) (Part I) the following persons are to be considered as absconders:- (a) persons charged with cognizable offences, against whom there is evidence sufficient to warrant their trial, and who are at large when charge-sheet is submitted on completion of the police enquiry; (b) persons who have escaped from police custody, or from a jail or lock-up; (c) accused persons for whom proclamation has been issued under Section 87, Criminal Procedure Code; (d) persons wanted for prosecution under Section 176, Indian Penal Code, for violating the conditions of bond under Section 565, Criminal Procedure Code. No entry will be made in the register without the written order of the Superintendent of Police. Should a warrant be received, it will be kept in the file of unexecuted warrants, but the name of the offender should not be entered in the register without the order of the Superintendent of Police................................” Mr. Kh. Mani submits that however, in the present case, none of the aforesaid conditions mentioned under Rule 72 are fulfilled for declaring the petitioner as an absconder. Mr. Kh. Mani therefore, submits that the authorities had not applied the provisions of Cr.P.C. and though Rule 72 of the Assam Police Manual is also not applicable, the petitioner has been described as an absconder. Therefore, the fundamental right of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution has been breached by not following the procedure established by law. 13. Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned Senior counsel continuing the argument on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in the present petition can be examined from two perspectives. Firstly, from the perspective of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to whether the authorities had complied with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. before issuing the impugned Press Note and secondly, from the angle of the constitutional law as to whether the Press Note conforms to the constitutional norms. 14. Firstly, from the perspective of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to whether the authorities had complied with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. before issuing the impugned Press Note and secondly, from the angle of the constitutional law as to whether the Press Note conforms to the constitutional norms. 14. He submits that seen from the perspective of procedural requirements, as already submitted earlier, the impugned Press Note cannot be sustained in law as the procedures laid down under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Assam Police Manual had not been adhered to before issuing the impugned Press Note in declaring the petitioner as an absconder. Mr. Lalitkumar submits that not only there has been breach of the Criminal Procedure Code but also serious infraction of the constitutional rights of the petitioner, more particularly rights as guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Relying on the decision in Kharak Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 1964 (1) SCR 332 he submits that issuing the Press Note has prevented the petitioner from moving about freely, thus violating his right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of Constitution. He also refers to the decision in Prabhu Dayal Deorah Vs. The District Magistrate, Kamrup & Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 103 in contending that no procedure of law was followed in issuing the Press Note. He submits that the Press Note is defamatory in nature by describing the petitioner as a “wanted criminal.” He has been condemned as a criminal before being adjudged so by a competent court in accordance with law. Further, by describing the petitioner as a “wanted criminal” in the Press Note his reputation has been seriously eroded. In other words, the Press Note is defamatory in nature. Mr. Lalitkumar submits that it is well settled that the scope of Article 21 has been expanded not only to cover the mere physical existence but also incorporates the right to live with dignity. He submits that once a complaint has been lodged against the petitioner, an investigation must be undertaken by strictly following the procedure established by law. However, as already discussed above, the police had not adhered to the procedure established by law and had issued a Press Note in post-haste. He submits that once a complaint has been lodged against the petitioner, an investigation must be undertaken by strictly following the procedure established by law. However, as already discussed above, the police had not adhered to the procedure established by law and had issued a Press Note in post-haste. In the process it has also defamed the petitioner by describing him as a “wanted criminal” which is violative of his fundamental right and has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Prabhu Dayal Deorah Vs. District Magistrate, Kamrup & Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 103 . His contention is that the right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 could be deprived only in accordance with the procedure established by law as has been mentioned above. According to the petitioner, the procedure contemplated under Article 21 is the procedure provided under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. However, since the aforesaid provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with before issuing the impugned Press Note, it clearly amounts to violation of the fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 21. Further, relying on the decision in Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 377 , Mr. I. Lalitkumar, Learned Senior Counsel contends that even being a member of a banned organisation will not make a person criminal unless he resorts to or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or incitement to violence. It was similarly held in Indra Das Vs. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380 . 15. Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen of this country who has been spearheading the movement of the JCILPS by acting as a Convenor of the said Committee and in that regard he had been in communication with various public functionaries including the Chief Minister, ministers and officials of the State as is clearly evidenced by the agreement entered between the members of the leaders of the JCILPS including the petitioner and representative of the State Government on 25th August, 2015. He contends that the State had also clearly acknowledged the leadership of the petitioner. 16. The petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that right to live with dignity and hence right to uphold one’s reputation is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution. He contends that the State had also clearly acknowledged the leadership of the petitioner. 16. The petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that right to live with dignity and hence right to uphold one’s reputation is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution. It has been submitted that the fair name or reputation of the petitioner as a law abiding citizen of this country has been tarnished by the impugned Press Note by describing him as a “wanted criminal.” In this regard, the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Om Prakash Chautala Vs. Kanwar Bhan & Others, (2014) 5 SCC 417 where the Honb’le Supreme Court observed in the following words: “1. Reputation is fundamentally a glorious amalgam and unification of virtues which makes a man feel proud of his ancestry and satisfies him to bequeath it as a part of inheritance on the posterity. It is a nobility in itself for which a conscientious man would never barter it with all the tea of China or for that matter all the pearls of the sea. The said virtue has both horizontal and vertical qualities. When reputation is hurt, a man is half-dead. It is an honour which deserves to be equally preserved by the down trodden and the privileged. The aroma of reputation is an excellence which cannot be allowed to be sullied with the passage of time. The memory of nobility no one would like to lose; none would conceive of it being atrophied. It is dear to life and on some occasions it is dearer than life. And that is why it has become an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. No one would like to have his reputation dented. One would like to perceive it as an honour rather than popularity. When a court deals with a matter that has something likely to affect a person’s reputation, the normative principles of law are to be cautiously and carefully adhered to. The advertence has to be sans emotion and sans populist perception, and absolutely in accord with the doctrine of audi alteram partem before anything adverse is said.” Similarly, the petitioner has also referred to the decision in Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2013) 10 SCC 591 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “18. The advertence has to be sans emotion and sans populist perception, and absolutely in accord with the doctrine of audi alteram partem before anything adverse is said.” Similarly, the petitioner has also referred to the decision in Umesh Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., (2013) 10 SCC 591 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “18. Allegations against any person if found to be false or made forging someone else’s signature may affect his reputation. Reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the good opinion of others and it is a personal right and an enquiry to reputation is a personal injury. Thus, scandal and defamation are injurious to reputation. Reputation has been defined in dictionary as “to have a good name; the credit, honour, or character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem and character by report”. Personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Therefore, it has been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 recognises the right to have opinions and the right of freedom of expression under Article 19 is subject to the right of reputation of others. Reputation is “not only a salt of life but the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life.” (Vide v. The Committee of Inquiry, (1989) 1 SCC 494 : AIR 1989 SC 714 ; Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124 : AIR 1983 SCC (L&S) 61 : AIR 1983 SC 109 ; Nilgiris Bar Association v. T.K. Mahalingam, (1998) 1 SCC 550 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 450; Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh, (2012) 8 SCC 1 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 34 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 733: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 449: AIR 2012 SC 2573 ; Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 224 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 347: AIR 2012 SC 2586 and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 398 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 655).” Mr. I. Lalitkumar in order to press home this point has also referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Mohan Reddy Vs. UOI, (2013) 3 SCC 99 and Kishore Samrite Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2013) 2 SCC 398 . The petitioner has also relied on the decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust and Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 587 , to contend that if any action of the State adversely affects the personal reputation, he must be provided a chance to have his say in the matter. But in the present case, no such opportunity was given, contends the petitioner. 17. Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned Senior counsel has also stated that the authorities had issued the impugned Press Note arbitrarily and without undertaking any proper investigation. He submits that the FIR was registered in the early morning of 02.06.2016 at around 6.50 a.m. suomoto by the police and in the evening of the same day, the impugned Press Note was released. It has been submitted that after the FIR was lodged there was no attempt by the police to record the statement of the petitioner or to get in touch with the petitioner, much less any attempt to arrest him. In fact, even though the petitioner was very much performing his role as a leader of the JCILPS attending various meetings including the Press Conference held in the evening of 02.06.2016, there was no attempt to arrest him at any point of time throughout the day by the police. However, the authority issued the impugned Press Note in the evening alleging that the petitioner is absconding. 18. Mr. I. Lalitkumar submits that “investigation” has been defined under Section 2 of the Cr.P.C. as to include all the proceedings under the Code for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. Mr. Lalitkumar submits that therefore any act of investigation must be authorised by a Magistrate. The authorisation by any other person other than a Magistrate is illegal. He submits that the issuance of the Press Note was not authorised by the Court but by the PRO of the Police Department. Mr. Lalitkumar submits that therefore any act of investigation must be authorised by a Magistrate. The authorisation by any other person other than a Magistrate is illegal. He submits that the issuance of the Press Note was not authorised by the Court but by the PRO of the Police Department. He further submits referring to Section 4 of the Cr.P.C. that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, enquired into by the officials in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. He submits that therefore every stage of the investigation must be carried out in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure which includes the release of Press Note which is part of the investigation, which must be authorised by the Magistrate. However, the said impugned Press Note was not issued by any order passed by the Magistrate but by the police. Hence, the impugned Press Note being released by the police and without any authorisation by a competent Magistrate, is illegal as it is beyond the scope of Section 4 of the Cr.P.C. 19. Mr. I. Lalitkumar has also submitted that investigation is to be conducted not only in accordance with the Cr.P.C. but also must be fair and free from harassment, mischief and carried out without any ulterior motive. In this regard, he has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254 wherein it was observed that: “32. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The Investigating Officer “is not to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth.” (Vide R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 ; Jamuna Chaudhary & Ors. The Investigating Officer “is not to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth.” (Vide R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 ; Jamuna Chaudhary & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 1822 and Mahmood v. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 69 ). 33. …………………………… 45. Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in tainted and biased manner. Where non-interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere. In such a situation, it may be in the interest of justice that independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a fresh investigation.” He further submits that though the power of the police to investigate is unfettered, yet it must conform to the statutory provisions and cannot violate the personal liberty or rights as observed in Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 532 :- “24. In the criminal justice system the investigation of an offence is the domain of the police. The power to investigate into the cognizable offences by the police officer is ordinarily not impinged by any fetters. However, such power has to be exercised consistent with the statutory provisions and for legitimate purpose. The Courts ordinarily do not interfere in the matters of investigation by police, particularly, when the facts and circumstances do not indicate that the investigating officer is not functioning bona fide. In very exceptional cases, however, where the Court finds that the police officer has exercised his investigatory powers in breach of the statutory provision putting the personal liberty and/or the property of the citizen in jeopardy by illegal and improper use of the power or there is abuse of the investigatory power and process by the police officer or the investigation by the police is found to be not bona fide or the investigation is tainted with animosity, the Court may intervene to protect the personal and/or property rights of the citizens.” He also has referred to the decision in Common Cause and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 332 to impress upon this Court that there is a responsibility and high degree of ethical rectitude required of an investigating agency to ensure that the investigations are carried out without any bias and are conducted in fairness. Similarly, the decision in Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135 has been also referred to, to emphasise upon the importance of the fact that the investigation must not only be fair but should not hamper the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. 20. Mr. Lalitkumar has also submitted that though the State respondents have stated in their counter affidavit that the petitioner was absconding from his two houses located at Singjamei Wangma Kshetri Leikai and Bheigyabati Leikai when searches were carried out in the said houses, in fact no search was carried out in either of the two places. It has been stated that the State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition did not mention the time when the police party launched the search on 02.06.2016 which clearly indicates that there was actually no search carried out by the police party. He also contends that there has been manipulation of records. Though the State respondents in their affidavit had stated that the two houses of the petitioner were raided on 07.07.2016 at 3.20 p.m. and 4 p.m. by the police team, the said raids were done only after the High Court issued notice in connection with the petition filed and after the issue of the Press Note, merely to justify the Press Note. It has been also submitted by Mr. Lalitkumar that after the house search was conducted on 07.07.2016 at 3.20 pm, the House Search Memo issued contained additional hand written words that the petitioner and his wife were not present in the house since 02.06.2016. Because of this, the witnesses to the search had filed a written objection to the SDPO, Mayang Imphal complaining manipulation of records. Ld. Senior Counsel relying on the decision in Kehar Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609 has submitted that in the present case, no witness was examined or any statement recorded by the investigating agency to the effect that inspite of the attempt of the police to arrest the petitioner, he was not available in his house before declaring him to be an absconder. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609 has submitted that in the present case, no witness was examined or any statement recorded by the investigating agency to the effect that inspite of the attempt of the police to arrest the petitioner, he was not available in his house before declaring him to be an absconder. Taking the same view, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Manohar Reddy (supra) also did not approve the order declaring a person as an absconder without examining witnesses. 21. Learned Senior counsel has also raised serious objections to the various other Press Notes/Press releases issued by the Manipur Police/Delhi Police/NIA/Mizoram Police announcing cash rewards for furnishing information for arrest of “wanted” persons, copies of which are annexed in the affidavit-in-opposition, contending that these are not at all relevant and are not similar in nature to the impugned Press Note and hence, not applicable in the present case. It has been submitted that in none of the aforesaid Press Releases issued by the authorities there was no use of such expression as “wanted”, and describing the persons therein as “criminal” as in the present Press Note. In fact, some of the persons against whom cash rewards had been announced were involved in killing or had escaped from the custody or were leaders of insurgent organisations whereas the present petitioner is a civilian, social worker and popular leader, leading a popular movement and as such cannot be equated with those persons. Mr. I. Lalitkumar accordingly, has submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination by treating him as a criminal in the impugned Press Note whereas those persons in the other press releases were not characterised or described as “wanted criminals” as has been done in the case of the petitioner. Mr. I. Lalitkumar submits that not only the Press Note has dubbed the petitioner as an “extremist” involved with an underground outfit, but the entire affidavit and counter affidavit filed by the State are full of descriptions of the petitioner as “wanted criminal”, which are highly defamatory in nature. 22. Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned Senior counsel relying on the decisions in Hukam Chand Shyam Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 128 ; Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (2015) 13 SCC 722, etc. 22. Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned Senior counsel relying on the decisions in Hukam Chand Shyam Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 128 ; Cherukuri Mani w/o Narendra Chowdari Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (2015) 13 SCC 722, etc. also submitted that where a power is required to be exercised by certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. It is of a more necessity to observe this rule where the power is of a drastic nature and if it is exercised in any manner other than the one provided, it will be violative of the fundamental principles of the natural justice. He submits that in the present case, if the authorities had desired to declare the petitioner an absconder and notify him as a “wanted” person, it ought to have been done by invoking the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. after having observed the various procedures contemplated under Sections 73, 74 etc. of the Cr.P.C. However, in the present case, no such procedure was followed before issuing the impugned Press Note declaring the petitioner as an “absconder” and as such the impugned Press Note is illegal and liable to be set aside. Mr. I. Lalitkumar further submits that these procedural provisions cannot be ignored in as much as these regulate functioning of the authorities for doing substantial justice. Ignoring the procedures laid down under the law can vitiate the executive actions. 23. In response, the learned Advocate General has submitted that an FIR was registered on the basis of certain information received, of the petitioner having indulged in serious offences of being involved with the activities of a banned organisation engaged in prejudicial activities against the State and also of promoting social unrest and enmity amongst different groups of people living in Manipur in the recent past in the backdrop of JCILPS, which created disturbances in public tranquillity and harmony with enormous damages of public properties. He submits that in this writ petition, the petitioner has not questioned the registration of the FIR against the petitioner but only the Press Note issued by the police seeking information about the petitioner announcing a cash reward of Rs. 5 lakhs to any individual who may provide information leading to his arrest. He submits that in this writ petition, the petitioner has not questioned the registration of the FIR against the petitioner but only the Press Note issued by the police seeking information about the petitioner announcing a cash reward of Rs. 5 lakhs to any individual who may provide information leading to his arrest. Learned Advocate General submits that the Press Note is not an order of the Court but merely an announcement made to the public at large by the police seeking information about the whereabouts of the petitioner to enable the police to apprehend the petitioner at the earliest. The Press Note thus was published to seek help from other law abiding citizens of this country who are otherwise not willing to come forward to assist the police to arrest the petitioner, and as such, in the Press Note the police has assured maintenance of confidentiality of the informer and such information were to be relayed only to responsible officers like the Addl. S.P. and Officer-in-charge of the police Station so that the informer is assured of maintaining confidentiality of his identity. In other words, the Press Note is merely a public announcement by the police seeking assistance and help from the public at large for the arrest of the petitioner. 24. Learned Advocate General submitted that by the Press Note the police are not seeking to declare the petitioner as an “absconder” or a “proclaimed offender” for which provisions under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. have to be invoked. Since the police are not seeking to issue any proclamation of the petitioner as an “absconder”, there is no need to invoke Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that considering the seriousness of the charges against the petitioner, the police invoked the inherent power to take all necessary steps required for the arrest of the accused petitioner. It has been submitted that it is the prime duty of the police to effect immediate arrest and recovery of incriminating documents or materials and the police are authorised under the law to resort to various measures for effecting immediate arrest of an accused. It has been submitted that it is the prime duty of the police to effect immediate arrest and recovery of incriminating documents or materials and the police are authorised under the law to resort to various measures for effecting immediate arrest of an accused. It has been submitted that normally, invoking provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is a time consuming process which can be invoked at a later stage also for which the police have already taken steps to invoke the said provision as the petitioner has remained hidden and evading arrest for about 2 (two) months. Learned Advocate General submits that the procedure contemplated under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. consists of several steps to be taken before a proclamation could be issued. However, the Press Note has been issued at a very initial stage of the investigation for effecting arrest of the accused immediately and the stage has not yet arrived for invoking Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. 25. Mr. Ibohal, learned Advocate General submits that as and when any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is received, the police may immediately start the investigation under Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. without the order of the Magistrate and no proceeding of a police officer shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. Learned Advocate General further submits that Section 157 of the Code enables the police to proceed to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, after sending a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. It has been submitted that Section 157 Cr.P.C. enables the police to take all measures necessary for discovery and arrest of an offender and as to what measures the police is authorised to take has not been defined under the Code as any such definition would limit the power of the police for discovery and arrest of an offender. Such a power of the police to effect discovery and arrest is of a wide amplitude which would include even issuance of Press Note as has been done in the present case for gathering information for arrest of the petitioner. Such a power of the police to effect discovery and arrest is of a wide amplitude which would include even issuance of Press Note as has been done in the present case for gathering information for arrest of the petitioner. It has been, therefore, submitted that the aforesaid Press Note is one such measure as contemplated under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that without the help and cooperation of the public at large it is extremely difficult for the police to get all the necessary information for discovery and arrest of the petitioner. It was in that context that the said Press Note was released seeking information from the public leading to the arrest of the petitioner by assuring confidentiality of the identity of the informer and cash reward has been offered as an incentive for the information. It has been submitted that the Press Note released by the police is not something very unique. In fact, the other investigating agencies including National Investigation Agency (NIA), Delhi Police, Mizoram Police etc. have been routinely issuing Press Releases seeking information from the public for arrest of “wanted” criminals and for giving cash rewards for furnishing information leading to their arrest. It has been submitted that in some of the press releases issued in one of these by the NIA, the words “absconder”, “extremist”, “terrorist” etc. have been used. It has been accordingly, submitted that there is widespread practice of public announcement by the investigating agencies by issuing press releases by using the words “absconder”, “extremist”, “terrorist”, etc. In the present case, it has been submitted that no such expression of being an extremist or terrorist has been used against the petitioner but only as “wanted criminal” as he has been charged of being a member of a banned organisation. 26. Mr. Ibohal, learned Advocate General further submits that the Press Note used the word “absconding” not in the context of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., but in its normal usage. He submits that the word “abscond” according to Black Law’s dictionary means “ to go in a clandestine manner out of the jurisdiction of the courts, or to lie concealed, in order to avoid their process. To hide, conceal, or absent oneself clandestinely, with the intent to avoid legal process. To postpone limitations. He submits that the word “abscond” according to Black Law’s dictionary means “ to go in a clandestine manner out of the jurisdiction of the courts, or to lie concealed, in order to avoid their process. To hide, conceal, or absent oneself clandestinely, with the intent to avoid legal process. To postpone limitations. To flee from arresting or prosecuting officers of the state.” The same has been defined in Oxford dictionary as “ to leave hurriedly and secretly, typically to escape from custody or avoid arrest”. He submits that the use of the expression “absconding” has to be understood in that context and not from the perspective of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. 27. Learned Advocate General relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 532 submits that in the criminal justice system, investigation of an offence is the domain of the police. Investigation of offences is one of the important duties the police has to perform. The aim of investigation is ultimately to search the truth and bring the offender to book. The power to investigate cognizable offences by the police officer is ordinarily not impinged by any fetters. However, such power has to be exercised consistently with the statutory provisions and for legitimate purposes. The courts ordinarily do not interfere in the matters of investigation by police, particularly, when the facts and circumstances do not indicate that the investigating officer is not functioning bona-fide. Further, relying on para 28 of the aforesaid judgment which enumerates the various steps of an investigation which includes the discovery and arrest of a suspected offender, collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence including search of places and seizure of things, it has been submitted that the power of the police to take all measures which are deemed necessary cannot be curtailed. In that context it has been submitted that immediate arrest of the petitioner for the purpose of collection of evidence, documents were of prime importance for which the aforesaid impugned Press Note was issued. It has been submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not lay down nor contemplates the various situations or contingencies which may arise in course of investigation by the police and police can devise all the strategies or methods while investigating by taking various steps required in an investigation. It has been submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not lay down nor contemplates the various situations or contingencies which may arise in course of investigation by the police and police can devise all the strategies or methods while investigating by taking various steps required in an investigation. Para 28 of Manohar Lal (supra) which enumerated the various steps involved in an investigation, is reproduced herein below: “28. In H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 : 1955 Cri LJ 526, this Court explained that the investigation generally consists of the following steps: (AIR p. 201, para 5) (1) Proceeding to the spot; (2) ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case; (3) discovery and arrest of the suspected offender; (4) collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of the examination of: (a) Various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of statement into writing, if the officer thinks fit; (b) the search of places and seizure of things, considered necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial; (5) formation of the opinion as to whether on the materials collected, there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial, if so, take the necessary steps for the same for filing necessary charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C.” It has been submitted that it will not be possible or feasible to contemplate the various steps that the police may be required to take for affecting a proper investigation which requires various steps mentioned above. 28. Learned Advocate General submits that the contention of the petitioner that the Press Note ought to have been issued only after complying the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted. It has been submitted that Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. comes under Chapter VI of the Code which deals with the process to compel appearance. This Chapter of the Cr.P.C. is for compelling attendance of the witnesses or accused, for which Sections 61 to 69 deal with service of summons for appearance and Sections 70 to 81 provide for warrant for arrest. Learned Advocate General submits that these various steps contemplated under Sections 61 to 81 are not intended for initial stage of investigation but for certain pending investigation or trial. Learned Advocate General submits that these various steps contemplated under Sections 61 to 81 are not intended for initial stage of investigation but for certain pending investigation or trial. These provisions are meant to be invoked when certain progress in investigation has been already made. It has been submitted that the present Press Note has been issued at the very initial stage of the investigation for effecting arrest of the petitioner. By the very nature of the urgency required at the initial stage of investigation, the police would not contemplate taking steps as provided under Sections 61 to 81 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that Section 82 accordingly, can be invoked only at a later stage of the investigation or at the stage of trial where the accused deliberately avoids appearance or the execution of warrant of arrest. Section 82 is normally invoked to ensure the accused or witness before the Court. This provision, for obvious reasons cannot be invoked where police are in a hot pursuit to secure presence and arrest of an accused person at the initial stage of the investigation. 29. It has been thus submitted that Section 82 is one of the procedures for ensuring or compelling presence of a witness or an accused at a later stage and the investigating officer of a case cannot be compelled to resort to the provisions of Section 82 at the initial stage of investigation. Learned Advocate General accordingly, submits that the impugned Press Note was not issued by invoking Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. in as much as the very purpose of issuing the Press Note was for immediate apprehension of the petitioner which would be defeated if the procedures contemplated under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. are to be invoked. Learned Advocate General also submits that police authorities are not prevented or debarred from taking steps for issuing the Press Note under the law. 30. Learned Advocate General has also submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the impugned Press Note was issued by the police with mala-fide and ulterior motives to discredit the people’s movement, based on fabricated photograph is absolutely without any basis as it has been later on ascertained through Forensic Science Laboratory Test, which has confirmed that the photograph which was uploaded in the social media and form the basis of the FIR was genuine and not a morphed one. 31. 31. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate General that the police had issued the Press Note after proper application of mind and after examining all the aspects of the case. It has been submitted that the police thought it necessary that public assistance would be required for proper investigation and establishment of the hiding places of the petitioner and it could be done with the help of the public for which certain extraordinary steps were required to be taken, including publication of the Press Note. Learned Advocate General has also submitted that Rule 72 of the Assam Police Manual deals with the definition of the term “absconder” and the method for their search and arrest, providing that such persons charged with cognizable offences and who are at large when the charge sheet is submitted on completion of investigation or who have escaped from police custody, or from a jail or lock-up, or accused persons for whom proclamation has been issued under Section 87 Criminal Procedure Code, or persons wanted for prosecution under Section 176 Indian Penal Code or for violating the conditions of the bond under Section 565 Criminal Procedure Code are to be considered as “absconders”. It has been submitted that situation contemplated under Rule 72 are not applicable in the present case hence, not relevant to the present case. 32. Learned Advocate General submits that though the petitioner is claiming that he is a leader of a popular movement, it is a fact that he has been charged of being involved in prejudicial activities against the State and also inciting innocent public promoting social unrest and enmity among different groups of people living in Manipur in the recent past in the backdrop of JCILPS which has created disturbances in public tranquillity and harmony with colossal damages of public properties. He submits that as many as 75 FIR cases have been registered in connection with the JCILPS movement of which the petitioner is one of the leaders. 33. Learned Advocate General also submits that the present impugned Press Note is like any other news item published in the newspaper and if the petitioner feels aggrieved that his name has been tarnished, he has other civil remedies available before him, and since alternative remedy is available, a writ would not lie. 34. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Addl. Advocate General supplementing the Ld. 34. Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Addl. Advocate General supplementing the Ld. Advocate General’s submission, contends that the issue of the Press Note was within the statutory power of the police in the investigation of a crime. He submits that the source of power in issuing the Press Note is Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. which enables the police to take measures for discovery and arrest of the offender. The Press Note is one of the measures which the investigating officer is entitled to take for effecting arrest of the petitioner. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Anr., (1992) Supp (1) SCC 222, he submits that investigation consists of several steps including search of places and seizure of things and arrest of the suspected offender and the police officer has statutory power and right as part of an investigation, for which he need not have the order of a Magistrate or a Court. It is because of the unique role of the police in an investigation that he has been given liberty to collect the necessary evidence in any manner he feels except to the extent expressly prohibited by the Code or Evidence Act. It’s primary focus is on the solution of the crime by intensive investigation and it is his duty to ferret out the truth. Thus, it has been submitted that the issuance of the impugned Press Note is one of the methods the police is authorised to adopt. 35. Learned Addl. A.G. further submitted that as to the meaning of “mala-fide” it has been explained in para 50 in the above decision which means want of good faith, personal bias, grudge oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose. The administrative action must be said to be done honestly in good faith, and if it is done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not, an act done honestly is deemed to have been done in good faith. It has been further submitted that determination of a plea of mala-fide involves two questions, namely (i) whether there is personal bias or oblique motive and (ii) whether the administrative action is contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of valid exercise of administrative power. It has been further submitted that determination of a plea of mala-fide involves two questions, namely (i) whether there is personal bias or oblique motive and (ii) whether the administrative action is contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of valid exercise of administrative power. It has been submitted that further action taken must be proved to have been mala-fide for such considerations and mere assertion or a bald statement is not sufficient. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is not able to prove mala-fide in the present case, as the steps taken by the police were in the interest of proper investigation of the case. 36. Learned Addl. Advocate General has also submitted that the NIA which had also issued similar Press Notes seeking information for arrest of accused persons and for giving cash rewards were in exercise of their duties under the Cr.P.C. and if the NIA could issue such Press Release, the Manipur Police also can do so while discharging functions under the Cr.P.C. 37. What emerges from the rival contentions of the parties is that the core issues to be decided by this Court are whether the Police had the authority to issue the impugned Press Note and whether the Press Note was issued by the Police in conformity or violation of the provisions of Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code and whether it was also violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and if so, whether the same is liable to be quashed/set aside and whether issuance of the Press Note was mala-fide. 38. As evident from the impugned Press Note, it was essentially issued for seeking information and assistance from the general public about the whereabouts of the petitioner for effecting his arrest. For furnishing information leading to his arrest, the Police have offered cash rewards as incentive assuring confidentiality of the informants. While seeking information as mentioned above, the impugned Press Note has also used the words/expressions “WANTED”, “wanted criminal” “absconding”. It is these expressions deployed in the Press Note that have really offended the petitioner thus raising the grievances before this Court. The petitioner has taken strong exception to the use of these expressions dubbing him as an “absconding” and “wanted criminal”. It is these expressions deployed in the Press Note that have really offended the petitioner thus raising the grievances before this Court. The petitioner has taken strong exception to the use of these expressions dubbing him as an “absconding” and “wanted criminal”. On the other hand, the State have tried to justify the Press Note contending that the petitioner has been charged with cognizable and very grave offences and such an action taken by issuing the Press Note is within the power and authority of the Police to effect immediate arrest of the petitioner as he was evading arrest while investigating the case. 39. For deciding these issues, we will revisit the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Constitution in the light of the submissions made by the parties. 40. The Criminal Procedure Code is a complete and comprehensive Code dealing with all issues relating to criminal justice system, how crimes are to be reported, investigated and trial conducted and punishment imposed. It also deals with ancillary issues relating to the criminal justice system. The Code elaborately lays down the power of the police in the investigation of cases including arrest of offenders. 41. In the present case, we have noted that the petitioner has been accused of committing the offences under Sections 121/121A/109/120-B/148/149/152/153-A/188/341-IPC, 3 P.DPP Act and Section 18/20 UA(P) Act, which are cognizable offences. How cognizable offences are to be dealt with has been elaborately provided under the Code. 42. Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. authorises a police officer to arrest without an order from the Magistrate and without warrant, any person who has been accused of committing a cognizable offence. Section 46(2) of the Code provides that if a person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police officer may use all means necessary to effect the arrest. Section 48 further provides that a police officer may, for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorised to arrest, pursue such person into any place of India. Section 60A provides that no arrest shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of the Code or any other law for the time being in force providing for arrest. Other related provisions are to be found in Sections 154, 156 and 157 of the Code. Section 60A provides that no arrest shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of the Code or any other law for the time being in force providing for arrest. Other related provisions are to be found in Sections 154, 156 and 157 of the Code. Section 154 authorises the Superintendent of Police to start investigation on receipt of a complaint of commission of a cognizable offence or to direct investigation by an officer subordinate to him and all the powers of an officer-in-Charge of the police station in relation to that offence is conferred on him, thus empowering him to effect arrest. Section 156 authorises the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station, even without the order of a Magistrate to investigate any cognisable offence and would have power to inquire into, and Section 157 deals with the procedure for investigation of cognizable offence and authorities to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. 43. It is thus, to be noted that for effecting arrest by a police officer under Section 41 or Section 157 of the Cr.P.C., the police is authorised to take all necessary measures. Of course, the Code has not elaborated the measures which the police officer is authorised to take for effecting arrest of an offender, thus, keeping it wide open and leaving it to the wisdom and discretion of the police officer as to the measures he may deem fit and proper to be taken under the facts and circumstances of the case. No limits have been laid down or prescribed under the Code for exercising such power. Therefore, in absence of any limitations placed by the Code, the only limitation would be the limitation placed by any other statutes or the Constitution. This position of law has been also firmly established and reiterated in a number of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Manohar Lal Sharma (supra), P.P. Sharma (supra) etc. 44. As to what is to be done by the police officer if an accused person evades arrest, the Code of Criminal Procedure provides under Section 46(2) as mentioned above that that if a person attempts to evade arrest the police officer may use all means necessary to effect arrest. Section 157 also empowers the police to take necessary measures. 44. As to what is to be done by the police officer if an accused person evades arrest, the Code of Criminal Procedure provides under Section 46(2) as mentioned above that that if a person attempts to evade arrest the police officer may use all means necessary to effect arrest. Section 157 also empowers the police to take necessary measures. The other provision under the Code which one may find relevant is Section 82 which provides that if any Court has reason to believe that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it cannot be executed, such Court may publish written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and time as provided under Sub-section 1 of Section 82 which is reproduced herein-below:- “82. Proclamation for person absconding:- (1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. (2).................................. (3).................................. (4)................................. (5)..................................” 45. A close examination of the aforesaid provision of Section 82, however, would indicate that the aforesaid procedure is to be adopted only in association with the Court. It is only the Court which is authorised to issue such a proclamation for absconding. For doing so, the Court has to be specifically moved with such materials and only when the Court arrives at the satisfaction that the person against whom the warrant was issued by the Court has absconded or concealed himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, provisions of Section 82 can be invoked. For doing so, the Court has to be specifically moved with such materials and only when the Court arrives at the satisfaction that the person against whom the warrant was issued by the Court has absconded or concealed himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, provisions of Section 82 can be invoked. As to when and how warrant can be issued by the Court has been provided under Sections 70 to 80 of the Cr.P.C. A reading of Section 82 would clearly reveal that the warrant must have been issued by a Court as provided under the Code, and only when such warrant issued by the Court could not be executed either because the person against whom warrant had been issued by the Court has absconded or concealed himself and after the Court comes to the satisfaction that the person has intentionally absconded or concealed himself to avoid execution of warrant, that a proclamation could be issued under Section 82 of the Code. In other words, the condition precedent before issuing proclamation for absconding under Section 82 of the Code is the issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court and non execution of the warrant because of abscondence or evasion by the person against whom warrant was issued by the Court. It is, therefore, clearly evident that Section 82 will be applicable only after the warrant issued by the Court could not be executed because of avoidance by the offender. But, in the present case, no such warrant has been issued by any Court for apprehension or arrest of the petitioner. The police are seeking to arrest the petitioner soon after registration of an FIR disclosing commission of cognizable offence. The arrest of the petitioner at this stage sought by the police is by virtue of the power entrusted and inherent to the police under Section 41 read with Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the power of the Court is yet to be invoked for the purpose of issuing warrant of arrest. Therefore, this Court would take the view that the stage of invoking Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is yet to arrive. Therefore, this Court would take the view that the stage of invoking Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is yet to arrive. To that extent, the contention of the learned Advocate General that the present stage is at a very early stage of investigation where the police are seeking arrest of the petitioner by virtue of the power conferred under Section 41 read with Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. and police has not yet invoked the provisions of Section 82 at this stage, finds force. 46. We are therefore, unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the impugned Press Note could be issued only by invoking Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. and since procedure laid down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has not been followed, the Press Note is illegal. As discussed above, in the present case the Court had not yet issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner. In absence of issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court, invoking the provisions of Section 82 of the Code does not arise. Consequently, it cannot be said that the Press Note was issued in violation of Section 82. Such a notification seeking information of the whereabouts of a person could be issued by the police in exercise of powers conferred by Section 41 and Section 157 of the Cr.P.C., independent of the power of the Court. Of course, such notification cannot be said to be a “proclamation” declaring any such person as an “absconder”. For formal proclamation to be issued declaring any person to be an absconder, the procedures provided under Section 82 have to be complied with and resorted to. 47. In spite of the rejection of this plea of the petitioner that the impugned Press Note was issued in contravention of Section 82 of the Code, this Court would agree with the contention of the petitioner that the expressions used in the impugned Press Note about the petitioner as an “absconder” and as a “wanted criminal” cannot be supported by any provision of the Code. It is to be noted that any action for arrest which is contrary to the provisions of the Code is prohibited under Section 60A of the Code. It is to be noted that any action for arrest which is contrary to the provisions of the Code is prohibited under Section 60A of the Code. However, it has been the consistent plea of the State that the Press Note was issued only for the purpose of soliciting information from the general public for effecting immediate recovery and arrest of the petitioner and recovery of other incriminating material evidences at the initial stage of the investigation. If that is the primary purpose for issuing the Press Note at the very initial stage of the investigation as contended by the State, this Court fails to understand how the police could say that the petitioner is “absconding” and could use the expression “wanted criminal” in the Press Note. Though the police may be using the expression “absconding” in a loose manner in its plain meaning but this expression “absconding” has also a technical meaning under the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a person is found to be absconding, there are certain provisions provided under the Code to deal with such a situation as provided under Sections 82, 83, etc. When a person against whom a warrant has been issued by a Court evades arrest by way of absconding or concealing himself, he is deemed to have “absconded” for which the Court if satisfied, could issue a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. It is also to be mentioned that Rule 72 of the Assam Police Manual defines who an absconder is. However, as discussed above, the situations contemplated under Rule 72 to bring within the definition of the term “absconder” are not present in the present case and hence the petitioner cannot be dubbed as an absconder within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Assam Police Manual. Thus, the word “absconding” ought not be used casually in its plain literal meaning by the police during investigation as it has its own legal meaning and connotation. The expression “absconder” in legal parlance connotes certain legal attributes in respect of an accused, or an offender, as someone who wilfully evades his presence or hides himself from the process of law. The expression “absconder” in legal parlance connotes certain legal attributes in respect of an accused, or an offender, as someone who wilfully evades his presence or hides himself from the process of law. To constitute abscondance there must be an intention to evade arrest, which could be indicated by various acts of the persons, either by his repeated or continuous evasion of the process of law or to hide after coming to know of any warrant of arrest or the intention of the police to apprehend him. The expression “absconding” does not mean merely the act of concealment or absence, but there must be accompanying element of wilfulness and deliberate intention on the part of the person to remain concealed or absent. Only when these two elements are present that the act of absence can be termed as “absconding”. Thus, this expression “absconding” could not have been used casually in its ordinary meaning as has been done by the police authority while issuing the Press Note. If the police had used the expression in the Press Note that the petitioner is not traceable, perhaps the petitioner might not have any reason to be aggrieved by the Press Note. The fact that the Press Note has used the word “absconding” has made the petitioner protest contending that he is not an absconder. To that extent, the objection of the petitioner cannot be said to be unreasonable. 48. We have noted that the Press Note was issued after the I.O. of the case had written to the Superintendent of Police requesting for taking people’s cooperation as essential for immediate arrest of the petitioner vide his letter dated 2nd June, 2016. Though the said letter had elaborately described the charges against the petitioner and also emphasised that the arrest of the petitioner is required in order to crack down in the interest of the people in general and the common people for peaceful maintenance and restoration of law and order in the state, various steps taken by the police for arresting the petitioner or the actions on the part of the petitioner to evade arrest, have not been mentioned in detail. The letter merely mentions that efforts have been made to effect arrest of the petitioner but he is absconding from his house to avoid police arrest. The letter merely mentions that efforts have been made to effect arrest of the petitioner but he is absconding from his house to avoid police arrest. We have also perused the Case Diary of which, we do not wish to make any comment at this stage as the investigation is in full swing. Without elaborating much on this aspect of the Case Diary, suffice to say that the statement contained in the Press Note that the petitioner is “absconding” could have been very well avoided. Instead of using the sentence, “The individual is absconding and Imphal West District police are making all efforts to arrest him at the earliest” in the Press Note, the Police could have used the sentence “The individual is not traceable or could not be arrested and Imphal West District police are making all efforts to arrest him at the earliest”. This Court, however, is not at all suggesting that it is illegal per se to use the expression that “The individual is absconding” in the Press Release. We are of the view that when the Press Note was issued on 02.06.2016 use of that expression could well have been avoided in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It may also be noted that we are not sitting as a supervisory or appellate authority to determine whether the police could have or could not have used the expression that the petitioner is “absconding” in the Press Note nor are we, in exercise of the power of judicial review, suggesting that the police cannot at all use the expression/word “absconding” in any Press Note/Release. But we are of the view in the facts and circumstance of the case, the use of the expression “absconding” in the Press Release could have been well avoided. We are also not attempting to lay down any standard to decide, when a person can be said to be “absconding”, even while not invoking Section 82 of the Code, as it would depend from case to case. As to whether mere absence from the residence of a person at the time of the visit of the police would amount to an act of “absconding” or not would depend on the facts of each case. As to whether mere absence from the residence of a person at the time of the visit of the police would amount to an act of “absconding” or not would depend on the facts of each case. But, as discussed above, for treating any act as an abscondance, it must be associated with a wilful and deliberate act to hide or conceal himself from the process of law or to avoid arrest. For example, if a person is fully aware that a case of cognizable offence has been registered against him and the police are on the lookout for his arrest, in such a situation even a single instance of evading arrest may amount to “absconding” as he is fully aware of his possibility of arrest which he wants to avoid. However, if he is unaware of any registration of any case involving cognizable offence and is also not aware that he is wanted by the police, absence from his residence or place of stay when the police makes a raid, may not amount to absconding. 49. It is to be remembered that when the FIR case was registered against the petitioner in the early morning of 2.6.2016, it was not on the basis of any formal complaint by any complainant but was registered suo moto by the police on the basis of information gathered by the police from a social media application. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was aware soon after the FIR was registered against him that the FIR case has been registered against him suo moto by the police in the morning of 2nd June, 2016 at about 6.50 a.m. and that the police are intending to arrest him. Therefore, if the petitioner was not found in his house on the day of registration of the FIR, it cannot be said with certainty that he was evading arrest and “absconding” as he may not be aware of the intention of the police to arrest him and he be away from his residence to attend to certain work or chore. It may be observed that in this part of the country daily activities get started very early in the morning and by 6.50/7.00 am, it cannot be considered unusual to leave one’s house for attending certain engagement. It may be observed that in this part of the country daily activities get started very early in the morning and by 6.50/7.00 am, it cannot be considered unusual to leave one’s house for attending certain engagement. However, on that day, if the petitioner had prior knowledge that an FIR had been lodged against him and there was a possibility of his being arrested by the police, in such a situation, when he leaves his house, one may presume that he is absconding. However, it has not been shown that the petitioner was aware of the registration of the FIR case against him and that the police were on the look out for the petitioner in the morning of 02.06.2016. In such an event, his absence from his home on the day of the registration of the FIR may not be sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that he is “absconding”. However, the police issued the Press Note on the same day in the evening describing him as absconding, which in the facts and circumstances of the case may not be warranted. This Court has also kept in mind the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner in the immediate past had been engaged in various public activities, of which the authorities were fully aware of. It is also not the case that he was wanted in other cases where he had been evading arrest. He has been specifically sought to be arrested for the first time only in connection with the FIR in the present case, though may for legitimate reasons. 50. As regards the other issue regarding the use of the expression “wanted criminal”, this Court would agree with the submission made by the petitioner that the use of such expression in the impugned Press Note is not permissible. Under the criminal justice system as followed in this country, a person cannot be dubbed as a “criminal” unless he is so convicted by a competent court for committing an offence after a trial. Any person accused of committing any crime will be deemed to be innocent till he is proven guilty. Such a person is considered as an “accused” during the investigation and trial and not as a “criminal”, as best an “offender” as used in the Code. Any person accused of committing any crime will be deemed to be innocent till he is proven guilty. Such a person is considered as an “accused” during the investigation and trial and not as a “criminal”, as best an “offender” as used in the Code. To that extent, the contention of the petitioner that he has been wrongly described as a “wanted criminal” is upheld in as much as the petitioner is yet to be convicted in any criminal case, much less in the present case where he is sought to be arrested. Therefore, this Court holds that the usage of the expression “wanted criminal” in the impugned Press Note is impermissible. 51. In this regard, as to the allegation of violation of reputation of the petitioner as a part of his fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, this Court would agree with the contention of the petitioner, though not fully. In the present case, the petitioner has been merely charged of committing certain offences though there are of very serious nature. Yet, it is at the preliminary stage of investigation. The investigating authority has yet to conclude the investigation after examining the witnesses and gathering evidences on the basis of which a trial could be launched against the petitioner. Trial can commence only after filing of charge sheet on conclusion of the investigation and a person can be declared a criminal only after the charges are proved in the Court of law convicting him for committing offences prohibited under law. In the present case that stage has not yet come as various stages of investigation, trial are to be concluded. Further, the State respondents have not brought on record any order of conviction of the petitioner by any criminal Court for committing any offence under any penal law of the land. Therefore, the petitioner, cannot be technically and legally described as a “criminal”. It is well settled principle in criminal jurisprudence which is also applied in this country that any person accused of an offence will be considered innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, it would be wrong to describe the petitioner as a “wanted criminal” in the Press Note. 52. Sometimes, the word “criminal” is used in a very loose manner by the public at large. Therefore, it would be wrong to describe the petitioner as a “wanted criminal” in the Press Note. 52. Sometimes, the word “criminal” is used in a very loose manner by the public at large. We often see in newspapers and other public media describing persons who are accused of committing crimes to be criminals. However, such usage of the term “criminal” by layman cannot be countenanced if it is used by persons who are associated with the criminal justice system. In the present case, the impugned Press Note describing the petitioner as a “wanted criminal” has been issued by the Police Department which is expected to be aware of the principles of criminal jurisprudence, meaning and nuances of various terms used in the criminal justice system, and as such they could not have used this expression “wanted criminal” casually. Use of the expression “wanted criminal” in the impugned Press Note, cannot therefore, be upheld. To that extent, contention of the petitioner that this impugned Press Note has violated his right to reputation cannot be brushed aside and said to be without merit. However, we would like to add that the petitioner has been charged with committing very serious offences, which are being investigated and there is forensic report stating that the offending picture is genuine. Therefore, till the petitioner has been honourably acquitted or discharged of these serious charges, there will always be a cloud on his reputation. It is not that the police have used this word “criminal” without any context. It has been used in the context of the serious charges labelled against him under sections 121/121A/109/120-B/148/149/152/153- A/188/341-IPC, 3 PDPP Act and 18/20 UA(P) Act. However, as observed earlier, these charges, howsoever, serious would not warrant describe the petitioner as a “criminal”. At the same time, only when there is no such charge against the petitioner and no criminal investigation pending against him that the use of such word “criminal” would prima facie constitute defamation. Such however, is not the case in the present case. 53. At the same time, only when there is no such charge against the petitioner and no criminal investigation pending against him that the use of such word “criminal” would prima facie constitute defamation. Such however, is not the case in the present case. 53. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the impugned Press Note has violated his right to move freely as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, this Court, however, does not find any merit in view of the fact that the petitioner has been charged of committing serious offences and is under investigation and could be also subjected to arrest in course of investigation. The impugned Press Note does not amount to prohibiting his right to movement as it was issued seeking information about his whereabouts. If it leads to his arrest thus restricting his freedom of movement, the same is in accordance with the procedure established by law and will be permissible and cannot amount to violating his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 15(1)(d). 54. We also do not find merit in the contention of the petitioner that the Press Note was issued mala-fide to tarnish his name and portray the JCILPS movement in a poor light. The fact remains that the petitioner has been charged with serious cognizable offences on the basis of which an FIR was lodged against him. The FIR lodged against him is not under challenge in the present proceeding. It has been stated that the challenge to the FIR by the wife of the petitioner has not been successful. The authority of the police to arrest the petitioner on the basis of the FIR case cannot be doubted, for which the police were empowered to take all measures as they may deem appropriate. In that context, the Press Note was issued soliciting help and information from the public. This cannot be faulted with. The only problem as discussed above is the use of the expressions “wanted criminal” and “absconding”. This Court has found the use of the aforesaid words avoidable. However, these words have been used in the context of the allegations against him. It cannot be said that these were deliberately used just to malign him and the movement, as necessary evidences or materials are lacking in the writ petition to warrant drawing such a conclusion. This Court has found the use of the aforesaid words avoidable. However, these words have been used in the context of the allegations against him. It cannot be said that these were deliberately used just to malign him and the movement, as necessary evidences or materials are lacking in the writ petition to warrant drawing such a conclusion. This Court is of the view that mere excesses committed by the investigating agency by using certain expressions the Press Note, without any more adequate evidence, cannot lead to the conclusion that such excess committed by the investigating authority is mala-fide. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to establish with cogent materials that the impugned Press Note was issued mala-fide to malign him and the movement of which he was one of the leaders. 55. The petitioner has also raised another issue contending that by publishing the Press Note, the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination. As regards this contention also the Court does not find merit. As already discussed above, the power of the police to arrest a person flowing from Sections 41, 46(2) or 157 is unlimited. In order to effect arrest of an accused, the police have been given the authority to take all such measures as they may deem it necessary, which may include issuing of Press Release seeking information of the whereabouts of an accused. For that purpose, the police may offer a cash award as an incentive as has been done by the impugned Press Note. To that extent, the action of the police in issuing the Press Note seeking information about the whereabouts of the petitioner by offering cash reward to the informant cannot be faulted. However, the problem has arisen in this particular case when the police went beyond the action of seeking information and offering reward by declaring the petitioner to be “absconding” and describing him as a “wanted criminal”. The wide power of the police to effect arrest cannot be doubted nor can be curtailed nor any rigid rules or guidelines be laid down to regulate the same. The only limitation which could reasonably be placed is that all such actions must not be prohibited under any other law and must be circumscribed by the contours of the fundamental rights and constitutional norms. The only limitation which could reasonably be placed is that all such actions must not be prohibited under any other law and must be circumscribed by the contours of the fundamental rights and constitutional norms. For example, in order to effect arrest of a fugitive, the police could resort to phone tapping to trace him, but the police cannot resort to it without following the law governing the field. The police have to comply with the requirements of Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, which allows interception of telephonic messages in the interest of public safety and on occurrence of public emergency, upon approval by the Home Secretary for reasons recorded in writing which will be valid for only two months, etc. Accordingly, so long as the action of the police does not violate any specific provisions of law or does not breach the constitutional limits more particularly the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and remains within the province of rule of law, no fault could be found with such action of the police while investigating an offence including arresting persons. In the present case, petitioner has been charged of committing cognizable offences which are of serious nature, for which he has been sought to be arrested in connection with which the police would be entitled to take all such measures as they may deem appropriate and fit, which will include issuing any Press Release or notification. But, such Press Release or notification should be within the limits of law as discussed above. This Court has already observed that the use of the expressions “wanted criminal” and that the petitioner “is absconding” however, seem to have gone beyond the permissible limits. Before the petitioner has been convicted for committing any crime by a competent criminal Court, use of this expression “wanted criminal” in the impugned Press Note cannot be sustained and to that extent the impugned Press Note suffers from this error. As already discussed above the use of the expression that “The individual is absconding” is also inappropriate in the facts and circumstance of this case. As already discussed above the use of the expression that “The individual is absconding” is also inappropriate in the facts and circumstance of this case. The present impugned Press Note is one of the various measures which the police are authorised to take for effecting arrest but such a Press Note ought not have used the expression “absconding” casually as it certainly gives an impression to the public at large for whom the Press Note was intended to be, that the petitioner is deliberately avoiding arrest and is a fugitive. 56. Seen from the aforesaid context, use of the word “WANTED” in the beginning of the Press Note also seems to be misleading. Since, the main purpose of the Press Note was to solicit assistance and information from the public at large, the use of the word should have been qualified by using word “INFORMATION”. This Court takes view considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The word, “WANTED” on its own does not connote anything except that something is wanted, without indicating what is being wanted. But in the context of the background facts, it also conveys an impression that the petitioner is a fugitive from law and avoiding the process of law for which he is “wanted” to be arrested. This impression is strengthened by the use of the words “wanted criminal” in the main text of the Press Note. Thus the use of the word “WANTED” in the beginning of the Press Note, thus, can also connote a meaning prejudicial to the petitioner that he is a criminal for which he is wanted by the police. But as discussed above, the main purpose for issue of the Press Note is to solicit help and information from the public for effecting arrest of the petitioner, because of which we have found the use of the expression “wanted criminal” objectionable. Therefore, the primary purpose for use of the word “Wanted” is to seek information about the whereabouts of the petitioner. We have adopted this interpretation which is more agreeable to the main text/purpose of the Press Note and which is less prejudicial to the petitioner, as any interpretation which is likely to cause prejudice to the petitioner is to be avoided. Thus, if the aforesaid word “WANTED” is qualified by the word “INFORMATION” it would dispel any such connotation or impression. Thus, if the aforesaid word “WANTED” is qualified by the word “INFORMATION” it would dispel any such connotation or impression. Therefore, we also find that the use of this word “WANTED” only without being qualified by the word “information” is objectionable. 57. Having also found that the use of the words “wanted criminal” and “absconding” in the impugned Press Note are not permissible, the next consideration is whether because of these lapses, the entire Press Note is liable to be set aside. We do not feel so. For holding this, we invoke the doctrine of severability and our stand is guided by the principles as discussed in R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India, 1957 SCR 930 : AIR 1957 SC 628 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “22. That being the position in law, it is now necessary to consider whether the impugned provisions are severable in their application to competitions of a gambling character, assuming of course that the definition of “prize competition” in Section 2(d) is wide enough to include also competitions involving skill to a substantial degree. It will be useful for the determination of this question to refer to certain rules of construction laid down by the American courts, where the question of severability has been the subject of consideration in numerous authorities. They may be summarised as follows: 1. In determining whether the valid parts of a statute are separable from the invalid parts thereof, it is the intention of the legislature that is the determining factor. The test to be applied is whether the legislature would have enacted the valid part if it had known that the rest of the statute was invalid. Vide Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 82, p. 156; Sutherland on Statutory Construction, Vol. 2 pp. 176-177. 2. If the valid and invalid provisions are so inextricably mixed up that they cannot be separated from one another, then the invalidity of a portion must result in the invalidity of the Act in its entirety. On the other hand, if they are so distinct and separate that after striking out what is invalid, what remains is in itself a complete code independent of the rest, then it will be upheld notwithstanding that the rest has become unenforceable. Vide Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, Vol. I at pp. 360-361; Crawford on Statutory Construction, pp. 217-218. 3. On the other hand, if they are so distinct and separate that after striking out what is invalid, what remains is in itself a complete code independent of the rest, then it will be upheld notwithstanding that the rest has become unenforceable. Vide Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, Vol. I at pp. 360-361; Crawford on Statutory Construction, pp. 217-218. 3. Even when the provisions which are valid are distinct and separate from those which are invalid, if they all form part of a single scheme which is intended to be operative as a whole, then also the invalidity of a part will result in the failure of the whole. Vide Crawford on Statutory Construction, pp. 218-219. 4. Likewise, when the valid and invalid parts of a statute are independent and do not form part of a scheme but what is left after omitting the invalid portion is so thin and truncated as to be in substance different from what it was when it emerged out of the legislature, then also it will be rejected in its entirety. 5. The separability of the valid and invalid provisions of a statute does not depend on whether the law is enacted in the same section or different sections; (Vide Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, Vol. I, pp. 361-362); it is not the form, but the substance of the matter that is material, and that has to be ascertained on an examination of the Act as a whole and of the setting of the relevant provision therein. 6. If after the invalid portion is expunged from the statute what remains cannot be enforced without making alterations and modifications therein, then the whole of it must be struck down as void, as otherwise it will amount to judicial legislation. Vide Sutherland on Statutory Construction, Vol. 2, p. 194. 7. In determining the legislative intent on the question of separability, it will be legitimate to take into account the history of the legislation, its object, the title and the preamble to it. Vide Sutherland on Statutory Construction, Vol. 2, pp. 177-178.” In the present case, as already observed, this Press Note was issued by the Police primarily to solicit information and assistance from the public, but it went beyond the permissible limits of law on certain areas as discussed above, which have no relation to the prime purpose of issuing the Press Note to seek information and assistance. 2, pp. 177-178.” In the present case, as already observed, this Press Note was issued by the Police primarily to solicit information and assistance from the public, but it went beyond the permissible limits of law on certain areas as discussed above, which have no relation to the prime purpose of issuing the Press Note to seek information and assistance. We are of the view that the Press Note could have been issued without these offending words if the authorities were aware that use of these words would not be permissible. These offending portions could be severed without affecting the validity of the main portion and primary object of the Press Note as these are not inextricably linked. The rest of the Press Note will remain effective and undisturbed by the deletion of the aforesaid offending portions of the Press Note. The remaining portions of the Press Note can retain their character, meaning and scope unaffected by the deletion of these offending portions and can still stand on their own and can be enforced. The prime purpose for issuing the Press Note remains unaffected even if these offending portions are removed from the Press Note. The offending parts and the non offending part do not form a single scheme to make these two inseparable nor are they inextricably linked. Thus, by applying the doctrine of severability, we uphold the Press Note sans the offending portions which we are liable to be deleted and expunged. Accordingly, we are of the view that the offending words, “wanted criminal” and that “The individual is absconding” in the Press Note need to be deleted from the Press Note. We are also of the view that since the prime purpose of the issue of the Press Note was to seek information and assistance of the public in apprehending the petitioner, it was desirable not to use the word “WANTED” only in the beginning of the Press Note and it ought to have been qualified by the word “INFORMATION”. We do not otherwise, find any other fault with the issue of Press Note as a legitimate method adopted by the Police in course of investigation of a crime under the law. 58. We do not otherwise, find any other fault with the issue of Press Note as a legitimate method adopted by the Police in course of investigation of a crime under the law. 58. We would like to observe that since the press notes or releases are put in public domain, and if inappropriate words or expressions are used as in the present case, which may have the potential to adversely affect the image or reputation of any person, it is desirable that the police authorities work out appropriate formats/forms to be used for public announcement relating to commission of crime and investigation so that such lapses are not repeated in future, as such format/forms are not prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code. For this, let the matter be placed before the Director General of Police, Manipur, who may in consultation with the appropriate authorities formulate the formats/forms to be used for public announcements relating to any stage of investigation of crimes so that there may not be any infringement on the rights of the individuals concerned. We also make it clear that any future public announcements/press releases/ notes by Police or the State authority be made strictly in accordance with such formats/ forms. 59. For the reasons discussed above, we partly allow the writ petition by directing deletion of the words “wanted criminal” used in the Subject of the Press Note. We also direct deletion of the words “The individual is absconding” in the last line of the first paragraph of the main body of the Press Note. We, however, direct that henceforth the use of the word “WANTED” should be normally qualified with the word “INFORMATION” or such word to indicate the real purpose for which any such Press Note/Press Release/Publication is issued. As regards the rest of the Press Note, we do not find any fault and reason to interfere with the same and accordingly, is upheld. Ordered accordingly.