Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -148-89. Apart from Section 32 of POTA, Section 52 alsolays down certain guidelines which are to be strictlyadhered to while recording the confessional statementsof an accused person under Section 32. On this issue,it was held in Navjot Sandhu case (supra) as under:“158. These provisions of Section 32, which areconceived in the interest of the accused, willgo a long way to screen and excludeconfessions, which appear to be involuntary.The requirements and safeguards laid down insub-sections (2) to (5) are an integral part ofthe scheme providing for admissibility ofconfession made to the police officer. Thebreach of any one of these requirements wouldhave a vital bearing on the admissibility andevidentiary value of the confession recordedunder Section 32(1) and may even inflict afatal blow on such confession. We have anotherset of procedural safeguards laid down inSection 52 of POTA which are modelled on theguidelines envisaged by D.K. Basu8 Section 52runs as under:“52. (1) Where a police officer arrestsa person, he shall prepare a custody memoof the person arrested.(2) The person arrested shall beinformed of his right to consult a legalpractitioner as soon as he is brought tothe police station.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -149-(3) Whenever any person is arrested,information of his arrest shall beimmediately communicated by the policeofficer to a family member or in hisabsence to a relative of such person bytelegram, telephone or by any other meansand this fact shall be recorded by thepolice officer under the signature of theperson arrested.(4) The person arrested shall bepermitted to meet the legal practitionerrepresenting him during the course ofinterrogation of the accused person:Provided that nothing in this subsectionshall entitle the legalpractitioner to remain present throughoutthe period of interrogation.”Sub-sections (2) and (4) as well as sub-section(3) stem from the guarantees enshrined inArticles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution.Article 22(1) enjoins that no person who isarrested shall be detained in custody withoutbeing informed, as soon as may be, of thegrounds for such arrest nor shall he be deniedthe right to consult, and to be defended by, alegal practitioner of his choice. They are alsomeant to effectuate the commandment of Article20(3) that no person accused of any offenceshall be compelled to be a witness againsthimself.159. The breadth and depth of the principleagainst self-incrimination embedded in Article20(3) was unravelled by a three-Judge Benchspeaking through Krishna Iyer, J. in NandiniSatpathy v. P.L. Dani. It was pointed out bythe learned Judge that the area covered by