SUBMITTED BY FAISAL AKBAR

SEMESTER 7TH A

SUBJECT CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Submitted to PROF ASHRAF ALI

Analysis of decisions of SC & High Courts regarding
section 54 & 55 CrPC
Section 54 of Crpc:-
When police may arrest without warrant: (1) Any police-officer may, without
an

Order from a Magistrate and without a warrant arrest—

Firstly, any person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or
against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information
has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so
concerned;

Secondly, any person having in his possession without lawful excuse, the
burden of proving which excuse shall lie on such person, any implement of
house breaking;

Thirdly, any person who has been proclaimed as an offender either under
this Code or by order of the Provincial Government;

Fourthly, any person in whose possession anything is found which may

reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be
suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing ;

Fifthly, any person who obstructs a police-officer while in the execution of his
duty, or who has; escaped, or attempts to escape, from lawful custody ;

Sixthly, any person reasonably suspected of being a deserter from the armed
forces of Pakistan;

Seventhly, any person who has been concerned in, or against whom a
reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been
received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been concerned in,
any act committed at any place out of Pakistan, which, if committed in
Pakistan, would have been punishable as an offence and for which he is
under any law relating to extradition or otherwise liable to be apprehended
or detained in custody in Pakistan;

Eighthly, any released convict committing a breach of any rule made under
Section 565, Sub-section (3);
Ninthly, any, person for whose arrest a requisition has been received from
another police officer, provided that the requisition specifies the person to be
arrested and the offence Or other cause for which the arrest is to be made
and it appears therefrom that the person might lawfully be arrested without
a warrant by the officer who issued the requisition.

(2) [Omitted byA.0., 1949, Sch.].

Different Judgment of Superior courts:-

Special Criminal AT Appeal No. 160 of 2018
 Accused Goga v/s the state
Decided by
1. Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpop
2. Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed
Date of hearing : 15.08.2018

Fact of the case:-

1. Brief facts leading to the filing of the appeals are that on
25.04.2016 ASI Zulfiqar Ali Kiyani alongwith his sub-ordinate staff
was busy in patrolling duty. When the Police party reached at
Link Road, Sector 34/3, Korangi No. 2 ½, Karachi, it was 0150
hours, where it is alleged that present accused was found by the
police party in the suspicious manner, who on seeing the Police
party, tried to run away from there but police surrounded and
caught him hold. On enquiry, the accused disclosed his name as
Rao Nadeem @ Goga son of Hassan Ali. ASI Zulfiqar Ali Kiyani
conducted personal search of the accused in presence of
mashirs, namely, H.C. Muhammad Ali, P.C. Azhar Ali & P.C. Waqar
Ali and secured one Awan Bomb [wrapped in the plastic shopper]
from the right pocket of his trouser. Upon his further search, ASI
Zulfiqar Kiyani had also secured one 9 MM Pistol, containing five
bullets in the magazine from the left side of his belt. ASI Zulfiqar
Kiyani inquired from the accused about license, to which he
replied in negative. ASI Zulfiqar Kiyani prepared mashirnama of
arrest and recovery in presence of aforesaid mashirs; pistol was
sealed at the spot. Thereafter, accused and the recovered
 property were brought at the Police Station Korangi, Karachi,
where two separate FIRs bearing No.155 of 2016 under Section
4/5 Explosive Substance Act, 1908 read with Section 7 ATA, 1997
& FIR No.156 of 2016 under Section 23 (1) (a) of the Sindh Arms
Act, 2013 were lodged on behalf of the State against the
appellant / accused.

In the above case the court observed that mere or spy/ credible
information received is not sufficient but rather the said information rmust be
given on oath or affirmation. Includes any information which in the judgment
of the officer to whom it is given appears entitled to credit in the particular
instance and which he believes. The credible information mentioned therein
need not be in writing. The object of section 54, Cr.P.C. is to give the widest
powers to the Police Officers to arrest the persons who are involved in
cognizable cases and the only limitation placed upon their power is the
necessary requirement of reasonability and credibility to prevent the misuse
of the powers by the Police [Link] my view the mere lodging of an
information does not make a person an accused nor does a person against
whom an investigation is being conducted by the police can strictly be called
an accused. Such a person may or may not be sent up for trial. The
information may be found to be false. An accused is, therefore, a person
charged in a trial. The Oxford English Dictionary defines an “accused” as a
person “charged with a crime” and an “accusation” as an “indictment”. Aiyer
in his Manual of Law Terms also gives the same meaning. I am of view,
therefore, that a person becomes an accused only when charged with an
offence. The Criminal Procedure Code also uses the word “accused” in the
same sense, namely; a person over whom a Court is exercising jurisdiction.”

2. 2010 MLD 271:-

Arrest by police without warrant. Section 54, Cr.P.C., confers very
wide powers to police with a purpose tat it may act swiftly in the
prevention of detention of a cognizable offence without going
through the formality of obtaining magısterial order of rest which
may cause delay. However, the rest and detention of persons
without warrant cannot be left to caprice but has to be covered by
the rule and principle of law. Police under this section cannot arrest
a person in any cognizable offence at his sweet will and caprice and
he is bound fulfill the necessary condition that there should be a
reasonable complaint: that there should be a credible information
and that there should be reasonable suspicion against the person to
be arrested while Section 54 of Cr.P.C., grants power of arrest in a
cognizable case it also imposing obligation on police to avoid
mistaking of the innocent for the guilty.

3. 2005 MLD 1474:-

Police officer under section 54 may arrest any person without
warrant who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or
against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible
information received or a reasonable suspension exist of having
been concerned. The scope of section 54 & 56 is totally different.
While the authority to arrest under section 54 of the code. Is limited
to the. Condition laid down from 1st to ninth. The power to arrest
under section 54 without a warrant is subject to the requirement of
senior of police officer specifying the offence or cause for which
arrest is made.

4. 2005 YLR 915:-

No doubt section 54 of the code gives a wide power to the police e
to arrest a person but such power are subject to limitation
mentioned in although he can be peace loving citizen. If the police
officer has no material with him against the accused, then the arrest
of the accused is illegal.

5. PLJ 1993 (cr) Lahore 9:-

Power gives is to police officer encroaches upon the liberty has to
construed and defined strictly.

6. PLD 2010 kar 361:-

Article 9 constitution of pakistan:-

Any search or detention of a person was an interference in his

liberty and unless done strictly in accordance with law, would be a
grave violation of article 9 of the constitution which was one of the
most and indeed very first of the fundamental right granted by the
constitution. Neither section 54 crpc nor the equivalent under
section 22 of control of narcotics substance Act 1997. Left the
matter of search, arrest or detention of a person to the subjective
satisfaction of the police. Test was objective and there must be
clear reasons and reasonable grounds for suspecting that a specific
Offence had been committed before the Police could take recourse
 to any of the said provisions of law. First Clause of S. 54, Cr.P.C,
required either a reasonable complaint or some “credible
information or “reasonable suspicion that the person concerned had
been involved in a cognizable offence. Section 22(b) of Control of
Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, allowed the Police to detain and
search a person only if the Police had reason to believe that he had
committed an offence under the said Act Mere fact that a person
turned away on seeing a Police party in order to avoid any contact
with them, would not give the Police ground for having any
reasonable suspicion” that he had committed a cognizable offence
or reason to believe that he had committed an offence under the
Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.

7. 2001 MLD 132:-

Police no doubt competent to arrest any person under section 54

but some evidence must be exist against that person to connect
him with the commission of offence.

8. 1993 PCRLJ 91:-

Object-Under the provision of clause first ofS. 54, CrP.C., the
Police Officer can arrest a person in the
Following four conditions:
(a) The accused is involved in a cognizable offence,
(b) Against the accused a reasonable complaint has been made
for the said offence:
C. A credible information is received by the Police Officer that he
is involved in a cognizable offence and
d. Reasonable suspicion exists that the said person is involved in the
cognizable offence. The object of S. 54, CrPC. Is to give the widest
powers to the Police Officers to arrest the person so are involved in
cognizable cases and the only limitation placed upon their power is the
necessary requirement of reasonability and credibility to prevent the
misuse the powers by the Police Officers.

*Title:* Analysis of Court Decision: Arrest of a Vagabond Habitual

Robber etc under Section 55 of the Criminal Procedure Code
(CrPC)
 *Introduction:*

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, empowers law enforcement

agencies to maintain public order and prevent crimes. Section 55
of the CrPC specifically deals with the arrest of vagabonds and
habitual offenders. In this assignment, we will analyze a court
decision involving the arrest of a vagabond habitual robber under
Section 55 of the CrPC.

*Facts of the Case:*

State vs. Ramu (Name changed for anonymity)

Ramu, a 30-year-old man, was arrested by the police on February

10, 2022, under Section 55 of the CrPC. The police alleged that
Ramu was a habitual robber and vagabond, having no fixed
address or visible means of subsistence. He was previously
convicted of robbery twice and was found loitering in the area
with suspicious intentions.

*Section 55 of the CrPC:*

Arrest of vagabonds, habitual robbers, etc.: (1) Any officer Incharge of a

police

Station may in like manner, arrest or cause to be arrested—

(a) Any person found taking precautions to conceal his presence within the
limits of such station, under circumstances which afford reason to
believe that he is taking such precautions with a view to committing a
cognizable offence ; or
(b)Any person within the limits of such station who has not ostensible
means of subsistence, or who cannot give a satisfactory account of
himself; or

© any person who is by repute an habitual robber, house-breaker or thief, or

an habitual Receiver of stolen property, knowing it to be stolen, or who by
repute habitually commits extortion or in order to the committing of extortion
habitually puts or attempts to put person’s in fear of injury.

(a) [Omitted by AO, 1949, Sch.]

*Court Decision:*

The Sessions Court, on March 15, 2022, upheld the arrest of

Ramu under Section 55 of the CrPC. The court observed.
1. Ramu’s previous convictions and history of robbery
demonstrated his habitual nature.
2. His lack of fixed address and visible means of subsistence
justified the police’s suspicion.
3. Ramu’s failure to provide a satisfactory account of himself
during interrogation further solidified the police’s case.

The court held that the arrest was lawful, and Ramu was
detained for a period of three months under the preventive
detention provisions of the CrPC.
*Analysis:*

The court’s decision highlights the importance of Section 55 of

the CrPC in maintaining public order. The section empowers
police to arrest individuals who pose a threat to society, even
without a warrant.

*Arguments in Favor of the Decision:*

1. Public Safety: The arrest of Ramu ensures public safety by

preventing potential robberies.
2. Preventive Detention: The detention provisions under the CrPC
prevent habitual offenders from repeating crimes.
3. Deterrence: The decision serves as a deterrent to potential
vagabonds and habitual offenders.

*Arguments Against the Decision:*

1. Human Rights: Critics argue that Section 55 infringes upon

individual rights, particularly the right to liberty.
2. Discretionary Power: Police discretion in arresting individuals
under Section 55 may lead to abuse of power.
3. Lack of Due Process: Detention without trial may violate the
principle of natural justice.
*Conclusion:*
The court’s decision in State vs. Ramu demonstrates the
application of Section 55 of the CrPC in preventing crimes and
maintaining public order. While concerns regarding human rights
and police discretion are valid, the section remains an essential
tool for law enforcement agencies. The decision highlights the
need for balance between individual rights and public safety.

*References:*

1. The Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

2. Judgment from law site