Territorial jurisdiction and arrest safeguards: investigation upheld where statutory authority applied and grounds of arrest were effectively communicated.

Superior police officers may investigate throughout their appointed local area, and police proceedings are not invalid merely because the investigating officer lacked territorial empowerment, where statutory authorisation and the duty of assisting another officer apply. An arrest challenge based on non-communication of the offence particulars fails where the arrestee is effectively informed of the grounds of arrest and the safeguards under Article 22(1) and Section 50(1) are substantially met. The text also distinguishes preventive detention safeguards under Article 22(5) and treats the cited authorities as fact-specific. On these principles, the challenge to investigation, arrest, and remand was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the investigating police officers lacked jurisdiction to investigate the offence and assist in the investigation. (ii) Whether the arrest of the petitioner was invalid for want of communication of the full particulars of the offence under the constitutional and statutory safeguards.

Issue (i): Whether the investigating police officers lacked jurisdiction to investigate the offence and assist in the investigation.

Analysis: The challenge to investigation on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction was repelled. Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises superior police officers to exercise the same powers throughout the local area to which they are appointed as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise within the limits of his station. Section 156(2) further protects police proceedings from being questioned merely because the officer was not empowered to investigate. The assistance rendered by the other officers was also upheld as lawful under Section 64(e) of the Bombay Police Act, which obliges police officers to aid another police officer when called upon to do so. The plea of mala fides was not accepted as a ground for interference at the stage of investigation.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge to the investigation failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the arrest of the petitioner was invalid for want of communication of the full particulars of the offence under the constitutional and statutory safeguards.

Analysis: The safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were held to require communication of the reasons and particulars of arrest, but not necessarily in writing. The facts showed that the petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest in the circumstances of the case, was produced before the Magistrate within the prescribed time, and had legal assistance. The Court distinguished the cited precedents on their facts and rejected the argument that Article 22(5) governing preventive detention controlled the present situation. The contention that non-compliance was established was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The arrest was not held to be illegal on the ground of non-communication of the particulars of the offence.

Final Conclusion: The writ proceedings did not succeed and the challenge to the investigation, arrest, and remand was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A police investigation is not vitiated merely because a superior officer or assisting officers act outside the local station limit where statutory authority and protective provisions apply, and compliance with Article 22(1) and Section 50(1) is satisfied when the arrested person is effectively informed of the grounds of arrest on the facts of the case.

---