Mahesh Chander Vs. the State

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 147 (1)(b)(i) [as amended in 1994]; [v.k. bali, cj, m.ramachandran & s. sirijagan, jj] third party risk gratuitous passengers - liability of insurance company held, gratuitous passengers in transport vehicles, including a motor cycle, can have coverage only when a comprehensive policy or extended policy as might be possible to be issued has been availed of by the owner of the vehicle. only in such cases, the insurance company is required to compensate. payment of premium alone can cast a corresponding duty on the insurer for rendering coverage on any such group, when they are not required to be mandatorily brought under insurance protection. [oriental insurance co. ltd. v ajaykumar, 1992 (2) ker lt 886 (f.b) is no longer good law in view of united india insurance co. ltd. v tilak singh, air 2005 sc 1576 & new india assurance co. ltd. v asha rani, air 2003 sc 607. united india insurance co. ltd. v appukuttan, 1995 (1) ker lt 807; 1996 aihc 933 (ker) overruled]......that the arrest of the individual mentioned in the petition was made by a sub-inspector of police of the state pf jammu and kashmir who is not a police officer competent to make an arrest under section 54 of the criminal procedure code, which has been extended to this state.the police officer referred to in section 54 must be an officer who is a member of the police force enrolled under the indian police act v of 1861. that act has not been extended to the state of jammu and kashmir and therefore a police officer of that state cannot be regarded as a member of the police force coming within the category of police officers who are referred to in the indian police act. it is also conceded by the learned public prosecutor that the indian code of criminal procedure has not been extended to the state of jammu and kashmir, in these circumstances, since the arrest was for an offence alleged to have been committed within the state of jammu and kashmir and consequently since the arrest made at alleppey cannot come within the purview of section 59 of the criminal procedure code, it is not warranted by, law. the reason given for the prayer in the original petition cannot therefore be disputed. the arrest not being warranted by any provision of law this is a fit case for making a direction under section 491 of the criminal procedure code, since the party concerned is within the limits of the appellate criminal jurisdiction of this court. we accordingly direct under section 491(1)(b), of the criminal procedure code that sri onkar singh 'alias' mahesh chander who is now reported to be in police custody at alleppey shall be set at liberty because the detention is not proper or legal. issue a writ in these terms to the division first class magistrate of alleppy who shall see that the order is carried out expeditiously.