The provisions of Section 50 of the Code are mandatory. Article 22 of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of protection against arrest and detention. The provisions of Section 50 of the Code are in conformity of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. A citizen’s arrest and detention will be illegal if he has not been communicated particulars of the offence. Timely information of the grounds of arrest serves the arrested person in many ways. It gives him an opportunity to remove the mistake, misapprehension or misunderstanding, if any, in the mind of the arresting authority. The object of this provision is to enable him to move for habeas corpus to obtain his release or to apply for bail or to make other expeditious arrangements for his defence.
An accused must be informed of the bare necessary facts leading to his arrest such as the grounds and the reasons, and the facts that in respect of whom and by whom the offence is said to have been committed as well as the date, time and place of offence, etc. Where it is urged that the provisions of Section 50(1) of the Code have not been complied with, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish the compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Code. Whether the provisions of Section 50(1) have been complied with in a particular case is a question of fact, and not a question of law, and has to be adjudicated on the basis of the material on record of the case. Where the accused committed crime is arrested on the spot, and given to the police, it is to be reasonably presumed that he knows the reasons of his detention, further disclosure of reasons is not necessary. Such arrest is not invalid for non-compliance of Section 50 of the Code. Where illicit arms were recovered from the accused, general diary contained recital that at the time of arrest, memo was given to the accused, it was held that grounds of arrest were communicated to the accused, and the provisions of Section 50 of the Code were complied with. In Ajit Kumar v.
State of Assam, the person arrested without warrant alleged by affidavit that he was not communicated with full particulars of the offence leading to his arrest. But the police officers claimed that they communicated the particulars orally but no counter affidavit denying the petitioner’s allegation was filed. The Court held that the arrest and detention of that person was illegal even if such oral communication was made, it is not clear whether full particulars were communicated or mere section was communicated.