Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether women could be required to attend an Army camp or any place other than their place of residence for interrogation under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, and whether the protection in the proviso to Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applied.
Analysis: The constitutional safeguards invoked were read with the statutory protection in the proviso to Section 160, which forbids requiring a woman to attend any place other than the place where she resides. The special powers conferred on Army officials under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 were held not to displace that protection. The legal position was treated as settled that a woman, whether accused or witness, is not to be summoned to a police station or Army camp for interrogation and may be dealt with only at her residence. The order also recorded that once a person is handed over to the police by Army authorities, the Army should not retake custody for interrogation.
Conclusion: Women cannot be required to attend an Army camp for interrogation, and the protection of Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies equally in the context of Army action under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958.
Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a mandatory safeguard protecting women from compelled attendance at any place other than their residence, and that safeguard is not overridden by special powers conferred on Army authorities.