A JUDICIAL REVIEW ON KEJRIWAL’S ARREST ORDER

Arrest of  Kejriwal  has generated  many questions  in my mind  regarding demerits of the Indian Law which were however  made by the British Rule.You ought to know first that the  Code Of Criminal Procedure was made by British Rule in 1898 giving brutal power to police and  court   to exploit Indians  by trapping them in false matter , so that no Indian Could dare to speak a single word against British Rule..It was further  amended and repealed in 1973  but the provision remained almost same.

1.It  is the burning Question of  law why the Defamation case against Kejriwal was not dismissed which a magistrate is empowered in exercise of the power conferred under section 202 and 203 of the CrPC,1973.After taking the statement of Complainant Nitin Gadkari and his witnesses, the complaint case ought to have been dismissed on the ground of  misuse of  law by Nitin Gadkari. Still Gadkari is corrupt,though he has been proved innocent by the Income Tax Department..But you should know that he has been released in the matter of Disproportionate Assets Case, which the Income Tax Department is empowered   to investigate..But one leading Indian News Paper The Times Of India disclosed  a  lot against the same Gadkari which resulted in his quitting from the post of BJP President,but no one observed  this case in the legal pretext to prosecute Gadkari..Neither Govt,nor Court took cognizance into the matter.Gadkari was accused of  installing fake companies having fake directors and  fake addresses. So,Gadkari  is still a corrupt man and he is corrupt till the time when he will be proved innocent in this case by the Supreme Court Of India.So,I don’t find any justification behind the Defamation  Suit filed by Gadkari under section 500 of the IPC.There was one way to stop such suit which misuses the law ,only to hide the actual and corrupt identity of the person like Gadkari.There  must be one amendment in the section 199  of the CrPC which provides  perspective on the prosecution of defamation case. It  should clearly be written  in  the section  199  of  the CrPC  that no court shall take cognizance of the alleged defamation, if the conduct of the complainant appears to be suspicious, doubtful or unworthy of credit  whether there should be or should not be evidences against the complainant. This time the conduct of Gadkari  is Doubtful because  The Times Of India has disclosed a lot against him.Also,he is a person of unworthy of credit as he is one politician  and it is well settled observation  that mostly politicians and officers are corrupt-whether there  should be evidences against them or not.

2.As Kejriwal was not wrong,so it was Non-Judicial to compelling him to furnish bail bond even when he was consistent absent from the Court.If one accused is consistent absent but appears to be guilty, then the furnishing of bail bond appears to be Judicial.There is no provision in the Code Of Criminal Procedure to release  an accused on  undertaking or serving notice to him. There is one provision under section 41A of the CrPC  to  serve notice to the accused to ensure his attendance before police officer. An accused is released on serving notice. There should be such similar provision which should be exercised by the court in such cases where it appears to the court that the matter involves false allegation and it will be not in the end of justice to  furnish bail bond of the accused rather releasing  him on undertaking or serving notice. To secure the human rights of the accused and to meet the end of the justice, after section 41A,another section 41B  should be inserted.

3.I  find one error in the order of Metropolitan Magistrate  that  she has admitted that there is no provision in the CrPC to release  one accused on undertaking and she has explained very deeply the provision of section 436 and the section 441 of the CrPC   to support her claim. If there is no provision of  Undertaking, then How Kejriwal was released earlier on the ground of same undertaking at least on four occasions..Under section 151 of the CPC, the court has been provided discretionary power to work in such case where there is no provision in law but the implementation of that thing is essential for the end of justice. For the sake of justice, the Magistrate  ought to have applied  the power enshrined in the section 151 of the CPC  for following the procedure of   undertaking for which there is no provision ,but this was essential for the  sake of justice.

The Supreme Court Of  India should review the section 151 of the CPC and extend the power of court and scope of area  to exercise its discretion  for the justice.