Palok Basu, J.@mdashTwo revered Judges of this Court have differed on very vital point arising on the interpretation of the provisions contained in Section 257 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the new Code). The matter which has been referred to this Court for adjudication is whether the provisions in the said Section 257 of the new Code will be applicable during "investigation".
2. Bobby alias Premveer and Gyani alias Gyanendra Singh, applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in this case have filed an application u/s 482 Cr. P.C. which contains the following prayer "...the order dated 30-8-1999 issuing warrant ''B'' Case Crime No. 88 of 1999 u/s 395/412, I.P.C, Police Station Govind Nagar, Mathura passed by the C.J.M. Mathura be quashed....
3. Both the applicants alleged to be the residents of Aligarh and Ghaziabad, have alleged that a report u/s 392, I.P.C. was initially registered against them in Case Crime No. 88 of 1999 at Police Station Govind Nagar District Mathura but subsequently it came to be converted into under Sections 395/412, I.P.C. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application that both the applicants have been arrested in another case in district Ghaziabad and are lodged in District Jail Ghaziabad the Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 88 of 1999 in Mathura Case moved an application for obtaining ''B'' Warrant for production of the applicants which was served on 9-7 1999 to the jail, authorities in Ghaziabad. It is stated that on coming to know of issuance of the ''B'' Warrant, an application was moved on behalf of the applicants in the Court, of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura that since no case is pending against them in the Court at Mathura, therefore, ''B'' Warrant be cancelled. Upon this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura summoned the case dairy and other papers and subsequently, the Investigating Officer also appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was argued that ''B'' Warrant may be cancelled in view of the case law in Mukesh v. State of U.P. (1998) 37 All Cri : 1998 All LJ 2206 : 1999 Cri LJ 86. No further comment about the said order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 27-8-1999 is needed to be made here.
4. A detailed application dated 30-8-1999 appears to have been moved by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued an order dated 30-8-1999 requiring the production of two applicants in his Court by the Superintendent, District Jail, Ghaziabad. It further appears that having come to know of the order dated 30-8-1999 yet another application was moved by the applicants to thwart the issuance of ''B'' Warrant which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on that very day by observing therein that after due consideration of the prosecution allegations through the application of the Investigating Officer, an order has been passed summoning there two applicants through ''B'' Warrant, as it will be in the interest of justice that they be produced and if necessity arises, they will again be sent to Ghaziabad Jail if and when necessary. The copy of this order has been filed as Anhexure-5 to the application,
5. Apparently aggrieved by the aforesaid order, it has been described in the index as copy of the warrant, the applicants have filed the instant Section 482, Cr.P.C. petition, as detailed above. Learned single Judge entertained the application on 11-10-1999 and passed the following interim order, after exchange of the affidavits, which is reproduced below:-
In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be transferred from Mathura Jail, but, however, he may not be released from Ghaziabad jail." (the preposition from after the word transfer appears to have been wrongly written which should be to, comment by this Court)
6. Apparently on behalf of the applicants reliance was placed on the decision, Mukesh Kumar 1998 All LJ 2206 referred to above, and it was canvassed that on the aforesaid facts ''B'' Warrant should not be issued, therefore, it was argued before the learned single Judge that the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, be quashed and ''B'' Warrant be also cancelled.
7. Learned single Judge however, did not agree with the decision in Mukesh Kumar case 3 1998 All LJ 2206 : 1999 Cri LJ 86 (supra) and passed the following orders:-
I, THEREFORE, RESPECT FULLY DIFFER WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HON''BLE J. C. GUPTA, J. IN THE ABOVE CASE AND THE FOLLOWING POINT IS REFERRED TO FOR THE DECISION BY THE DIVISION BENCH "WHETHER AN ORDER u/s 257 Cr.P.C. IN FORM No. 35 OF SECOND SCHEDULE OF Cr.P.C. CAN BE ISSUED ON THE REQUEST OF THE POLICE DURING INVESTIGATION OF SOME OFFENCE, EVEN IF NO INQUIRY OR TRIAL OR PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING IN THE COURT.
8. With great respect to the learned referring Judge, it appears that in framing of the aforesaid question, it has been inadvertently again added "or proceedings are pending in the Court." In the earlier part of the referring order, the learned Judge proposed to include investigation as a proceeding under the Code as the expression proceedings is referred to in the provisions contained u/s 155, Cr.P.C. as also Section 157, Cr.P.C. and then dealt with the language used u/s 267, Cr.P.C. Before the order quoted above, the learned Judge has reached to the following conclusion:-
For the above reasons, with great respect 1 think that the narrow interpretation of the words "other proceedings under this Code" as meaning only the proceeding in the Court is not a correct interpretation and the investigation of the offence by the police u/s 155, Cr.P.C. is also a proceeding under the Code and for that purpose a Magistrate can exercise power u/s 257, Cr.P.C. to issue an order in Form No. 35 if the person is detained in some other prison.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there being no other course open, this Court is recasting the referring order as follows:-
Whether an order and warrant u/s 267 of the New Code In Form No. 36 of Second Schedule thereof can be issued by a Criminal Court on the request of the police investigating agency, during investigation of some other offence even if no inquiry or trial is pending in the Court.
10. Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned counsel for the applicants has been heard at extensive length. A written argument has also been filed by him. Sri Gajendra Pratap, Advocate was requested to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.
11. Sri Shekhar Yadav, Additional Government Advocate has espoused the cause of the State. Sri Arvind Tripathi, Additional Government Advocate, has assisted in the hearing of the matter and a detailed written argument was also filed. The Court is grateful to all the learned counsel appearing for the parties for the good assistance rendered by them.
12. Before proceeding further with the matter, the legislative history of some of the relevant enactments as also Rules and Regulations on agnate and cognate issues which seem to have crystallized into Section 267 of the new Code and also the newly added new Order 16-A of Civil Procedure Code, have to be noticed so that what is "B-War-rant" and in what manner Section 267 now can be said to control the issuance thereof is assimilated without leaving anything to doubt.
1. The Prisoners Act, 1900
13. This Act was passed (Act No. 3 of 1900) as it was thought expedient to consolid the law relating to prisoners confined by order of a Court. It has been provided in Section 3 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 that the Officers-in-charge of prisons can detain persons duly committed to their custody under that Act by any Court, according to the exigency; of any writ, warrant or order by which such person has been committed or until such person is discharged or removed in the course of law. Section 4 thereof. provides that warrant should be returned to the Court which had issued it after execution by the Officer In charge of the Prison.
14. It follows, therefore, that unless the Officer in charge of the Prison is otherwise required by some law to direct release of person detained, the detention through the warrant will continue.
2. The Prisons Act, 1894.
15. This law was passed (Act No. 9 of 1894) because it was thought expedient to amend the law relating to prisons and by subsequent amendment it became permissible for providing rules and regulations for such prisons. In the definition of the word ''Prison'' it has been mentioned that any jail or place used permanently or temporarily under the general or special orders of a State Government for the detention of Prisoners, and includes all lands and buildings appurtenant thereto. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 defines the ''criminal prisoners.'' Criminal prisoner means any prisoner duly committed to custody under the writ, warrant or order of any Court or authority exercising criminal jurisdiction or by order of a Court-martial whereas Sub-section (4) of Section 3 defines ''civil prisoner.'' Civil Prisoner means any prisoner who is not a criminal prisoner. Convicted Criminal prisoner as defined under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 means any criminal prisoner under sentence of a Court or Court-martial, and includes a person detained in prison under the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 or under the Prisoners Act 1871. Inspector General of Prisons and various other officers, their duties about admission, removal and discharge of prisoners have been detailed between Chapters III to XI of the Prisons Act, 1894.
3. Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898 (for short, the old Code).
16. Though the new Code is pari materia with most of the provisions contained in the Old Code, it did not have any provision parallel to the Section 257 of the new Code. But the definition of the terms "Investigation" and "Judicial Proceedings" remain identical. While investigation was defined in Clause (1) of Section 4 of the Old Code, it is defined in Clause (h) of Section 2 of the new Code and word Judicial proceedings has been defined in Clause (m) of the old Code and (i) in the new Code, which are quoted below for ready reference:-
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
Section 4(1): "Investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police-officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf.
Section 4(m): "Judicial proceedings" includes any proceedings in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath.
Criminal Procedure Code. 1973.
Section 2(h) : "Investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. Section 2(i): "Judicial proceeding" includes any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath.
17. Section 542 of the old Code permitted only a Presidency Magistrate to get produced before him any person confined in jail within the local limits of his jurisdiction "as a witness or an accused person" in any case pending before him, order could be issued by the said Magistrate to the Officer In Charge of the said Jail, requiring him to bring such prisoner in custody at a time to be therein named to the Magistrate for examination. Section 542 of the old Code is reproduced below:-
542. Power to Presidency Magistrate to order prisoner in jail to be brought up for examination.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Prisoners'' Testimony Act, 1869, any Presidency Magistrate desirous of examining, as a witness or an accused person, in any case pending before him, any person confined in any jail within the local limits of his jurisdiction, may issue an order to the officer in charge of the said jail requiring him to bring such prisoner in proper custody at a time to be therein named, to the Magistrate for examination.
(2) The officer so in charge, on receipt of such order, shall act in accordance therewith, and shall provide for the safe custody of then prisoner during his absence from the jail for the purpose aforesaid.
The aforesaid provision contained in Section 542 of the old Code permitted the Presidency Magistrate to have produced before him as a witness or an accused any person in confinement, in any case pending before him. From the language used in that section an interpretation that a Presidency Magistrate may have called such a detenue in a matter during investigation also, certainly will not be ruled out. The persons of the two classified descriptions i.e. "as a witness" and "as an accused person" had to be produced before such Magistrate as he could have summoned such a person even for purposes other than examining as a witness. It should be mentioned that the expression "for examination" with which the Sub-section (1) of Section 542 Old ends, correlates to the expression "desirous" of examination, as a "witness or an accused.
4. (The) Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. .
18. The aforesaid Act No. XXXIII of 1920 authorised the taking of measurements and photographs of convicts and others and has only 9 Sections out of which Sections 3 4 and 5 may be relevant which are quoted below:-
3. Taking of measurements, etc. of convicted persons.-
Every person who has been -
(a) convicted of any offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards, or of any offence which would render him liable to enhanced punishment on a subsequent conviction, or
(b) ordered to give security for his good behaviour u/s 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898,
Shall, if so required, allow his measurements and photograph to be taken by a police officer in the prescribed manner.
4. Taking of measurements etc., of non-convicted persons.- Any person who has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a. term of one year or upwards shall, if so required by a police officer, allow his measurements to be taken in the prescribed manner.
5. Power of Magistrate to order a person to be measured or photographed.- If a Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, it is expedient to direct any person to allow his mesurements or photograph to be taken, he may make an order to that effect, and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in order and shall allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, as the case may be, by a police officer:
Provided that no order shall be made directing any person to be photographed except by a Magistrate of the first class:
Provided further, that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation of proceeding.
5. The Transfer of Prisoners Act, 1950:
19. The aforesaid Act. No. XXIX of 1950 provides for removal from one State to another of persons confined in prison and has only 4 Sections out of which Section 3 may be relevant which is quoted below:
3. Removal of prisoners from one State to another-
(1) Where any person is confined in a prison in a State -
(a) under sentence of death, or
(b) under or in lieu of a sentence of imprisonment or transportation, or
(c) in default of payment of a fine, or
(d) in default of giving security for keeping the peace or for maintaining good behavior;
the Government of that State may, with the consent of the Government of any other State, by order, provide for the removal of the prisoner from that prison to any prison in the other State.
(2) The officer in charge of the prison to which any person is removed under Sub-section (1) shall receive and detain him, so far as may be, according to the exigency of any writ, warrant or order of the Court by which such person has been committed, or until such person is discharged or removed in due course of law.
6. The Prisoners [Attendance in Courts] Act, 1955:
20. The object and reason of the instant Act states that though the Act No. IX of 1900 deals with the attendance of prisoners in Court and obtaining their evidence in Courts;
Some of the provisions in this Part for securing the attendance of a prisoner in Court to give evidence or to stand his trial are cumbersome and result in avoidable, delay in the trial or criminal cases and in needless detention of prisoners who are already under trial. (emphasis by the Court)...The Bill provides that any civil or criminal court may, if it thinks that the evidence of any person confined in any prison is material in respect of any matter pending before it make an order in the prescribed form and send that order direct to the officer-in-charge of the prison who will be required to comply with it. It will not be necessary as at present to send such an order to the District or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the area where the prison is situated....No Civil Court may, however, make an order in respect of a person confined in a prison situate outside the State in which the Court is held. In such cases, a commission may suffice. The bill also provides (as in Section 43 of the present Act) that in certain circumstances and subject to certain exceptions the officer-in-charge of the prison may abstain from carrying out the order....
21. The instant Act has only ten Sections. Section 3 appears to be relevant and is quoted below for ready reference.
3. Power of Courts to require appearance of prisoners to give evidence or answer a charge.- (1) Any Civil or Criminal Court may, if it thinks that the evidence of any person confined in any prison is material in any matter pending before it, make an order in the form set forth in the First Schedule, directed to the officer in charge of the prison:
Provided that no Civil Court shall make an order under this sub-section in respect of a person confined in a prison situated outside the State in which the Court is held.
(2) Any Criminal Court may, if a charge of an offence against a person confined in any prison is made or pending before it, make an order in the form set forth in the Second Schedule, directed to the officer in charge of the prison.
(3) No order made under this section by a Civil Court which is subordinate to a district Judge shall have effect unless it is counter-signed by the District Judge, and no order made under this section by a criminal Court which is inferior to the Court of a magistrate of the first class shall have effect unless it is countersigned by the district magistrate to whom that Court is subordinate or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction that Court is situate.
(4) For the purposes of Sub-section (3) a Court of small causes outside a presidency town or the city of Hyderabad shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such Court is situate.
22. Section 4 thereof provides the powers of the State Government to exempt certain persons from operation of Section 3 and make it incumbent upon the officer in charge of prison to produce the prisoner. Then Section 6 lays down the condition for the Officer in charge of prison when to abstain from carrying out order. Section 7 permits examination of prisoners on Commissions. Section 8 provides that certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and CPC 1908 shall so far apply in relation to the examination on commission or otherwise of any person confined in a prison as they apply in relation to the examination on commission of any other person. (Emphasis by the Court). Section 9 confers power to the State Government to frame rules, which will be referred to a little leter when some of the framed Rules were taken up. Section 10 repealed Part IX of the Prisoners Act 1900 and also the First and Second Schedule to the said Act and provided a specific format for these two types of contingencies, which may arise under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 and Sub-section (2) of Section 3. For ready reference those two formats are reproduced below.-
THE FIRST SCHEDULE
(See Sub-section (1) of Section 3)
Court of
To the officer-in-charge of the...(state name of prison)
You are hereby required to produce, now confined in , under safe and sure conduct before the Court of at on the day of next by of the clock in the clock in the forenoon of the same day, there to give evidence in a matter now pending before the said Court, and after the said has then and there given his evidence before the said Court or the said Court has disposed with his further attendance, cause him to be conveyed under safe and sure conduct back to the prison.
The day of
A.B.
(Countersigned) C.D.
THE SECOND SCHEDULE
(See Sub-section (2) of Section 3)
Court of
To the officer-in-charge of the...(state name of prison)
You are hereby required to produce now confined in , under safe and sure conduct before the Court of at on the forenoon of the same day, there to answer a charge now pending before the said Court and after such charge has been disposed of or the said Court has dispensed with his further attendance, cause him to be conveyed under safe and sure conduct back to the said prison.
The day of
A.B.
(Countersigned) C.D.
7. U. P. Police Regulations:
23. These regulations have been framed for the State of U.P. in accordance with the powers conferred by the Police Act.
24. Regulations-35 may be of some importance, hence is quoted below.-
35. When a convicted or under-trial prisoner is sent, in pursuance of a requisition from a Court, to another district, an order signed by the Superintendent of the jail in which the prisoner is detained is sent with the prisoner, directing that he be returned when no longer required by the Court to which he is sent (see paragraphs 164 and 450 of the Jail Manual). It is the duty of the Public Prosecutor of the district to which the prisoner is sent to bring this order to the notice of the Court before which the prisoner is produced, and to obtain the necessary directions for the return, of the prisoner.
25. The Public Prosecutor must be careful to see that a nominal roll (Jail Form No. 44) is filled up to be attached to the warrant of every convict sentenced to transportation. He must bring to the notice of the superintendent of police any case in which a convict has been sentenced to transportation, but whose nominal roll has not been received from the Superintendent of the jail, through the District Magistrate, to be filled up.
26. Whenever an accused person is sentenced to imprisonment on conviction in a cognizable case investigated by the police Prosecutor will, from the information supplied by the Investigating Officer, have a statement preferred showing the previous convictions and antecedents of the accused and will have it placed before the presiding officer of the Court to enable him to classify the prisoner as "habitual" or "non-habitual" for jail purposes-vide G.O. No. 2651 / VI-1443 (5)-31, dated the 10th December, 1931.
8. U.P. Jail Manual.
27. These regulations have been framed for the State of U.P. in accordance with the powers conferred by the Prisons Act. It has Chapter 1 to LV = 1 to 55. After Chapter 55 it his Appendix A to Appendix R. Some of the appendices are directions issued in accordance with some of the paragraphs while a few of the appendices are the very Rules framed by the State in view of the powers conferred by some of the enactments referred to above or under some other enactments.
28. In order to have a comprehensive picture of the provisions of the jail Manual some of the paragraphs and one of the Appendices have to be referred to, though an outer sketch of the entire manual is indicated below to have a bird''s eye-view of this important and relevant law on the point in issue:
29. Chapter 1 deals with classification of Jails, 2 Reservation of Jails for various classes of prisoners, 3 & 4 - Admission of prisoners and their property, 5 - petitions and appeals, 6 with release of prisoners. Chapter 7 deals with transfer of prisoner which has paragraph 164, which is relevant and is quoted below:
164. Procedure when a convict is sent to another district to stand trial etc." When a prisoner is sent to another District for trial in another case, or for any other purpose, the Superintendent shall send with the prisoner an order requiring his return, his history ticket and a copy of his warrant of commitment. The Jailor shall take a receipt for these documents from the officer in charge of the police escort. The Prosecution Inspector of the District to which the convict has been sent shall arrange for the return of the prisoner when no longer required by the Court.
30. Chapters 8,9,10 and 11 provide for the remission system, convict officers, Revising Boards and release on probation respectively. Chapters 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 talk of classification of prisoners, superior class convicts simple imprisonment convicts, female prisoners and convicts and convicts under sentence of death respectively.
31. Chapter 18 deals with under-trial prisoners which contains paragraphs 444, 445 and 450 which are relevant and are quoted below:-
444. Cross reference in cases of prisoners on trial in more than one case. If an under-trial prisoner is being tried in more than one case, a cross reference, signed and dated by the jailer, shall be made on the back of each warrant in red ink in the following form.
Another case pending not to be released from Court.
445. Attendance in Courts. When the attendance of under-trial prisoners is required in Courts the prosecuting inspector shall send to the jail a list of such prisoners on the evening before the day on which their presence in Court is required. The jailer shall deliver the prisoners requisitioned in the list to the officer in charge of the police escort deputed to the jail to take the prisoners to Courts. The police shall be responsible for the safe custody of any prisoner committed to their charge till he has been returned to the jail or discharged from custody by order of the Court. It is for the police to decide, having regard to the provisions of paragraph 429 and the circumstances of the case, whether such prisoners shall be handcuffed or fettered and instructions shall be given by the prosecuting inspector to the jail accordingly.
450. Transfer for trial to another district.
When an under-trial prisoner is sent to another district for trial in another case, or for any other purpose, the Superintendent shall send with the prisoner his ticket and a copy of his warrant of remand together with an order requiring his return. The jailer shall take a receipt for these documents from the officer in charge of the police escort. The prosecuting inspector of the district to which the prisoner has been sent shall arrange for the return of the prisoner when no longer required.
32. While Chapters 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 provide for civil prison, mental Patients, dietary, accidents, deaths and disposal of the dead. Chapters 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 refer to visitors, interviews and letters, reformative influences, disciplinary and night watch and fetters for safe custody. Chapters 30 to 55 deal with offences-punishments escapes and outbreaks, prisoners in cell, jail industries and labour jail garden and cattle the Inspector General Prisons, the District Magistrate, the establishment, the Superintendent the Medical Officer, the Assistant Medical Officer, the Jail Officer, Security deposit, the Jailor the Deputy Jailor, the keys and the gate keeper, the Matron and female wardens, the reserve Warden Guard, Drills, Arms and Ammunitions, Uniforms, grain storage, works, accounts registers etc. and lastly, the Forms.
33. Then follows the Appendix-series. Appendices A and B contain further instructions under the Manual while Appendix C is the Rules framed under the U.P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act 1938. Appendix E, EE further instructions about juvenile and youthful offences. Appendices G to R, however, deal with management of factory, various kinds of labour, standard cooking ranges, retention period of various registers, Factory Registers and forms, despatch Rules for sale from Jails, retention of correspondence and list of returns, reports and indents, attendance Rules and Rule of Juveniles.
34. Having noticed the sketch of all the provisions in the Manual and the appendices up to ''R'' the last but one appendix "Q" is of extreme importance which is nothing but incorporation of the actual Rules framed by the State of U.P. in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955. The relevant Rules (in Appendix "Q") are reproduced here:
1. These rules may be called the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Rules, 1956 and shall come into force from January 1, 1956.
2. Not quoted.
3. Procedure for obtaining counter-signature of an order u/s 3. Every order submitted to the district Magistrate or to the district Judge for counter signature under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 shall be accompanied by a statement under the hand of the Presiding Officer of the subordinate Court of the facts which in his opinion render the order necessary and the district magistrate or the district Judge, as the case may be, may, after considering such statement, countersign the order or decline to countersign it.
4. Not quoted.
5. How a process is to be served on a prisoner.
When any process directed to any person confined in any prison is issued from any criminal or Civil Court, it may be served by exhibiting to the Superintendent of Prison the original of the process and depositing with him a copy thereof.
6. Not quoted.
7. Not quoted.
8. Not quoted.
9. Not quoted.
10. The handcuffing and fettering of convicted prisoners and under-trial prisoners while travelling by rail or road shall be regulated as below.
A-Convicted prisoners
(a) Handcuffs. Handcuffs shall be imposed on convicted prisoners when travelling by rail or road as below:
(1) Not quoted.
(2) Not quoted.
(3) Not quoted.
(4) Not quoted.
(b) Fetters:
(1) Not quoted.
(2) Not quoted.
(3) Not quoted.
(4) Not quoted.
B-Under-trial Prisoners
(1) In the case of Under-trial prisoners requisitioned by the police for attendance in Court or before a magistrate or under the authority of a competent magistrate for any other purpose the responsibility for deciding as to which Under-trial prisoners are to be handcuffed or fettered or both, and for seeing that the decision is carried out shall rest with police authorities.
proviso-Not quoted
Proviso-Not quoted
Proviso-Not quoted.
(2) Not quoted.
(3) In Court, handcuffs or Under-trial shall invariably be taken off unless the Presiding Officer directs otherwise.
(4) Not quoted.
(5) Not quoted.
(6) Not quoted.
11. The public prosecutor shall arrange for the production of Under-trial prisoners before Courts on the proper dates, and for their safe escort to and from the Courts. When the attendance of under-trial prisoners is required at Courts he shall send to the superintendents of Jail concerned a list of such prisoners and shall give clear directions on the list as to which prisoners are in his opinion to be handcuffed or fettered or both, and whether cross-bars are also necessary in any case. The public prosecutor shall also determine the strength of the escort with reference to the scale given in Rule 8 above and with due regard to the character of the prisoners and the number of Courts in which they are to be produced. The public prosecutor shall apply to the reserve inspector for the necessary number of police. Where he considers that the escort should be wholly or partly armed with muskets, he shall obtain the orders of the Superintendent of Police, or in his absence, of the Senior Police Officer at headquarters.
12 to 22. Not quoted.
23. THE ABOVE RULES SHALL, MUTATIS MUTANDIS BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASES OF THOSE PRISONERS ALSO WHO ARE SENT FOR TO ANSWER CHARGES MADE AGAINST THEM, AS WELL AS IN THE CASES OF PRISONERS WHO ARE SENT FOR TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS:
PROVIDED THAT IN BOTH CLASSES OF CASES AFORESAID THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SHALL BEAR THE CHARGES OF DIETING THE PRISONERS AND OF CONVEYING THEM TO AND FROM THE COURTS, WHICH REQUIRES THEIR PRESENCE.
(Emphasis by the Court)
9. Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
35. A completely new Chapter which contains only Order XVI-A has been inserted by Act No. 104 of 1976 vide Section 67 thereof which came into force w.e.f. 1-2-1977 The Rules 1 to 7 thereof are reproduced below for ready reference:-
Attendance of witnesses confined or detained in Prisons.
1. Definitions:- In this Order:-
(a) "detained" includes detained under any law providing for preventive detention:;
(b) "Prison" includes-
(i) any place which has been declared by the State Government, by general or special order to be a subsidiary jail and
(ii) any reformatory, borstal institution or other institution of a like nature.
2. Power to require attendance of prisoners to give evidence:-
Where it appears to a Court that the evidence of a person confined or detained in a prison within the State is material in a suit, the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce that person before the Court to give evidence.
Provided that, if the distance from the prison to the Court-house is more than twenty-five kilometres, no such order shall be made unless the Court is satisfied that the examination of such person on commission will not be adequate.
3. Expenses to be paid into Court- (1) Before making any order under Rule 2 the Court shall require the party at whose instance or for whose benefit the order is to be issued, to pay into Court such sum of money as appears to the Court to be sufficient to defray the expenses of the execution of the order, including the travelling and other expenses of the escort provided for the witness.
(2) Where the Court is subordinate to High Court, regard shall be had, in fixing the scale of such expenses to any rules made by the High Court in that behalf.
4. Power of State Government to exclude certain persons from the operation of Rule 2-(1) The State Government may, at any time, having regard to the matters specified in Sub-rule (2) by general or special order direct that any person or class of persons shall not be removed from the prison in which he or they may be confined or detained, and thereupon, so long as the order remains in force, no order made under Rule 2, whether before or after the date of the order made by the State Government, shall have effect in respect of such person or class of persons.
(2) Before making an order under Sub-rule (1) the State Government shall have regard to the following matters, namely:-
(a) the nature of the offence for which, or the grounds on which, the person or class or persons have been ordered to be confined or detained in prison;
(b) the likelihood of the disturbance of public order if the person or class of persons is allowed to be removed from the prison; and
(c) the public interest, generally.
5. Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out order in certain cases:- Where the person in respect of whom an order is made under Rule 2-
(a) is certified by the medical officer attached to the prison as unfit to be removed from the prison by reason of sickness or infirmity; or
(b) is under committal for trial or under remand pending trial or pending a preliminary investigation; or
(c) is in custody for a period which would expire before the expiration of the time required for complying with the order and for taking him back to the prison in which he is confined or detained; or
(d) is a person to whom an order made by the State Government under Rule 4 applies the officer in charge of the prison shall abstain from carrying out the Court''s order and shall send to the Court a statement of reasons for so abstaining.
6. Prisoner to be brought to Court in custody:- In any other case, the officer in charge of the prison shall, upon delivery of the Court''s order, cause, the person named therein to be taken to the Court so as to be present at the time mentioned in such order, and shall cause him to be kept in custody in or near the Court until he has been examined or until the Court authorizes him to be taken back to the prison in which he is confined or detained.
7. Power to issue commission for examination of witness in prison :- (1) Where it appears to the Court that the evidence of a person confined or detained in a prison whether within the State or elsewhere in India, is material in a suit but the attendance of such person cannot be secured under the preceding provisions of this Order, the Court may issue a commission for the examination of that person in the prison in which he is confined or detained.
(2) The provisions of Order XXVI shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the examination on commission of such person in prison as they apply in relation to the examination on commission of any other person.
10. Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (for short as and new Code)
36. The new Code received the assent of the President on 25-1-1974 and came into force w.e.f. 1-4-1974. It has completely a new section numbered as Section 257 which has to be quoted for the ready reference which has become the subject-matter of this reference as the two learned single Judges have put different interpretations, as stated above. Section 267 is reproduced below:-
267. Power to require attendance of prisoners.-
(1) Whenever, in the course of an inquiry. trial or other proceedings under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court-
(a) that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him, or
(b) that it is necessary for the ends of justice to examine such person as a witness,
the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court for answering to the charge or for the purpose of such proceeding or, as the case may be, for giving evidence.
(2) Where an order under Sub-section (1) is made by a Magistrate of the second class, it shall not be forwarded to, or acted upon by, the officer in charge of the prison unless it is countersigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom such Magistrate is subordinate.
(3) Every order submitted for countersigning under Sub-section (2) shall be accompanied by a statement of the facts which, in the opinion of the Magistrate render the order necessary, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom it is submitted may, after considering such statement decline to countersign the order.
37. Sections 268, 269, 270 and 271 of the new Code are Pari materia with Rule 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Order XVI-A quoted above, except the corresponding changes regarding reference made to Order XVI-A in the CPC and Section 267 in the new Code at relevant places. It may be stated that the Sections 268 to 271 New Code are broadly similar to Sections 4 to 8 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955. Nonetheless some expressions in the Sections 267 to 271 New Code at relevant places vitally differ from expression used in Sections 4 to 8 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955.
38. Section 475 of the new Code deals with Forms. It provides.-
Subject to the power conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the forms set forth in the Second Schedule, with such variations as the circumstances of each case require, may be used for the respective purpose therein mentioned, and if used shall be sufficient.
39. This Section 476 corresponds to Section 555 of the old Code except with difference that in old Code reference has been made to Fifth Schedule whereas in the new Code, Second Schedule has been mentioned. In the new Code, in Second schedule, Form 36 and Form 37 have been inserted. For ready reference, the contents of both the forms have to be put in here:-
(The Second Schedule)
FORM No. 36
ORDER REQUIRING PRODUCTION IN
COURT OF PERSON IN PRISON FOR
ANSWERING TO CHARGE OF OFFENCE
(See Section 257)
To the Officer in charge of the Jail at
WHEREAS the attendance of (name of prisoner) at present confined/detained in the above-mentioned prison, is required in this Court to answer to a charge of (state shortly the offence charged) or for the purpose of a proceedings (state shortly the particulars of the proceeding);
You are hereby required to produce the said under safe and sure conduct before this Court on the day of, 19, by A.M. there to answer to the said charge, or for the purpose of the said proceedings, on after this Court has dispensed with his further attendance, cause him to be Conveyed under safe and sure conduct back to the said prison.
And you are further required to inform the said of the contents of this order and deliver to him the attached copy thereof. Dated, this day of , 199.
(Seal of the Court) (Signature)
Countersigned
(Seal) (Signature)
FORM No. 37
ORDER REQUIRING IN COURT OF PER-
SON IN PRISON FOR GIVING EVIDENCE
(See Section 257)
To the Officer in charge of the Jail at Whereas complaint has been made before this Court that (name of the accused) of has committed the offence of (state offence concisely with time and place) and it appears that (name of prisoner) at present confined/ detained in the above-mentioned prison, is likely to give material evidence for the prosecution/defence;
You are hereby required to produce the said under safe and sure conduct before this Court at on the day of 19, by A.M. there to give evidence in the matter now pending before this Court, and after this Court has dispensed with his further attendance, cause him to be conveyed under safe and sure conduct back to the said prison.
And you are further required to inform the said of the contents of this order and deliver to him the attached copy thereof.
Dated, this day of 19.
(Seal of the Court) (Signature)
Countersigned.
(Seal) (Signature)
39-A. Before proceeding further, it should be pointed out that Form-36 and Form 37 are more or less similar to the Format indicated in the First and Second Schedule of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 but no corresponding Format or Form exists in the old Code. As per the practice, it was always a warrant described as ''B'' Warrant which was obtained by the Investigating Officer for procuring the attendance of the accused in the case being investigated for the production through the said warrant from another prison. The fact that such a Warrant was and is obtainable in accordance with Category ''B'' indicated in Rule 10 of the Rules framed under the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955, incorporated by Appendix "Q" to the Jail Manual, these orders as Warrants are known as "B-War-rant.
40. Section 73 of the new Code provides that the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Magistrate first Class may direct a warrant to any person within his local jurisdiction for the arrest of any escaped convict, proclaimed offender or of any person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest. It further provides that warrant shall be acknowledged in writing by such person, who will execute it by arresting the person, for whom, it was issued and in the event of such person being arrested, he shall be made over with the warrant to the nearest Police Station, who shall cause him to be taken before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case. Section 41 of the new Code permits any Police Officer to arrest any person without any order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, provided the conditions delineated between the Clauses (a) and (i) are fulfilled. Section 48 of the new Code provides that the Police Officer for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorised to arrest, pursue such person into any place in India. Section 54 indicates that how the information about the commission of cognizable offence is reached to the In-charge of the Police Station and how the diary regarding the said case is to-be maintained. Section 156 of the new Code provides that any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate and Sub-section (3) laid down that any Magistrate empowered u/s 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.
41. The procedure for investigation and how reports are to be submitted by Investigating Officer have been laid down in Chapter XII containing Sections 157 to 176 in the new Code. The important Section 160 of the new code is quoted below:-
160. Police Officer''s power to require attendance of witnesses. (1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required;
Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.
(2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under Sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence.
42. Section 161 specifically provides that any police officer making investigation under this Chapter, or any Police Officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this benefit, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. By Sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 161 it has been provided that such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture and Sub-section (3) of Section 161 says that the police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section: and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records, it should be pointed out that by Section 163 no police officer is permitted to offer or make any such inducement, threat or promise, as is mentioned is Section 164, during the course of the investigation of the offence.
43. A confession or statement may be recorded by any Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, if it is in the nature of confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation which the prosecuting agency requires to be so recorded. The examination of an accused by Investigating Officer has also paramount importance during the investigation of a crime. It has been found often that during investigation, the Investigating agency may require a test identification Parade to be held for getting the accused identified by the alleged witnesses of the occurrence. Similarly, police remand of some accused is obtained from criminal Courts if some recovery or incriminating circumstances are pointed out by such an accused. For ready reference, the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act may be noticed.
When any fact is disposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
44. It is the common knowledge that Section 27 has been interpreted as an exception to the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
45. Having noticed almost all the relevant provisions in the laws, Rules and Regulations, which will be required for discussing the ambit of Section 267, Cr.P.C., two decisions of the Supreme Court may be referred to at this very stage for the reason that the provisions of the new Code shall have to be interpreted in accordance with the interpretation put to those provisions by the Hon''ble Apex Court.
46. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court presided over by the Hon''ble Mr. Justice A.M. Ahmadi, as his Lordship the Chief Justice of India then was with Hon''ble Mr. Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy, who delivered the judgment, has considered the argument as to whether after initial remand of 15 days, can an investigating agency obtain a police remand. The answer has been in an emphatic No. The provisions of Section 167, Cr.P.C. with all its amendments from time to time have been clubbed and discussed extensively in the said decision. The argument of the prosecution counsel was rejected to the extent that if and when the accused was shown to have been involved in more offences in the same transaction, the police could obtain police remand after addition of those sections, even though 15 days initial judicial remand was over. A serious warning has been issued by the Apex Court in the following manner (Para 11 of AIR, Cri LJ):-
If that is permitted then the police can go on adding some offence or the other of a serious nature at various stages and seek further detention in police custody repeatedly, this would defeat the very object underlying Section 167.
47. Their Lordships obviously while making the aforesaid observations could not but be, concerned about a situation where the same accused may be wanted for investigation in another crime arising out of fresh transaction or a fresh case not connected with the case in which the police has already secured remand after his arrest or his surrender and the Judicial remand is continuing. At two places their Lordships have dealt with this aspect of the matter. After the aforesaid quoted observations, their Lordships have observed:-
However, we must clarify that this limitation shall not apply to a different occurrence in which complicity of the arrested accused is disclosed. That would be a different transaction and if an accused is in judicial custody in connection with one case and to enable the police to complete their investigation of the other case, they can require his detention in police custody for the purpose of associating him with the investigation of the other case. In such a situation he must be formally arrested in connection with other case and then obtain the order of the magistrate for detention in police custody.
48. In para 13 of the aforesaid decision, their Lordships have repeated the aforesaid verdict in the following manner:-
There cannot be any detention in the police custody after the expiry of first fifteen days even in a case where some more offences either serious or otherwise committed by him in the same transaction come to light at a later stage. But this bar does not apply if the same arrested accused is involved in a different case arising out of a different transaction. Even if he is in judicial custody in connection with the investigation of the earlier case he can formally be arrested regarding his involvement in the different case and associate him with the investigation of that case and the Magistrate can act as provided u/s 167(2) and the proviso and can remand him to such custody as mentioned therein during the first period of fifteen days and thereafter in accordance with the proviso as discussed above.
49. What is more important to be noted here is that in both the paragraphs, quoted above, their Lordships have deliberately used the expression "formal arrest" of an accused person, who stands already arrested. Why was it so expressed, shall be gone into when discussion on the point in issue is taken up a little later.
50. It has been held in the case of Deepak Mahajan that Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 167 are attracted with regard to production and detention of a person arrested under the provisions of Section 35(1) of FERA and Section 104 of Customs Act. It has been further held that arrest is a precondition for commencement of the Judicial custody. Simultaneously, it has been laid down that the registration of a case and entry in the diary relating to that case is not sine qua non. It has been held that the arrest need not be by the police officer or officer empowered to arrest. In this decision, their Lordships have discussed the earlier judgments of the Apex Court in
Therefore, the word ''investigation'' can not be limited only to police investigation but on the other hand, the said word is with wider connotation and flexible so as to include the investigation carried on by any agency whether he be a police officer or empowered or authorised officer or a person not being a police officer under the direction of a Magistrate to make an investigation vested with the power of investigation.
51. Therefore, the word investigation cannot be limited only to a police investigation but on the other hand, the said word investigation include the investigation carried out by any agency whether he be a police officer or empowered or authorised officer or a person not being a police officer under the direction of a Magistrate, to make an investigation vested with the power of investigation.
52. Apart from going into several important questions touching, the life and liberty of a person enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also the valuable safeguards provided under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, their Lordships have nonetheless put under bracketed limitation the accused''s right to challenge the manner and method of investigation. Their Lordships have laid down as under:-
More so, the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation. Safe under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a ease instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report u/s 173(2) of the Code or in a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report till the process is issued u/s 204 of the Code, as the case may be. An accused cannot claim any right of prior notice or opportunity of being heard inclusive of his arrest or search of his residence or seizure of any property in his possession connected with the crime unless otherwise provided under the law....The expression "reason to suspect" as occurring in Section 157(1) is not qualified as in Section 41(a) and (g) of the Code, wherein the expression ''reasonable suspicion'' is used. Therefore, what Section 157(1) requires is that the police officer should have ''reason to suspect'' with regard to the commission of an offence.
53. In making the aforesaid observations, their Lordships have relied upon the decision of the Apex Court,
54. The aforesaid decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court leave no room for doubt on three aspects which may emerge during the investigation of cases. Firstly, if the person wanted in the second case is already in judicial custody, police remand can be obtained. Secondly, the police remand cannot exceed 15 days commencing from the first day of arrest. Thirdly, the right to investigate a cognizable offence is statutory right of the police which includes right to arrest an accused, investigate the offence and in that process examine the accused also.
55. Coming now to the arguments of the rival parties, it was vehemently argued on behalf of the applicant''s counsel that if legislature had thought to include "investigation" as one of the contingencies where Section 267 Cr.P.C. was to be attracted, it may well have used the expression "investigation" and nothing prevented legislature from doing so. It was strongly argued that there are several other Sections such as Sections 210 and 428 wherein the legislature has used all the three expressions i.e. investigation, inquiry and trial and therefore, only one inference should be drawn by this Court that investigation was not to be included u/s 267, Cr.P.C. and therefore specifically the words inquiry and trial alone have been used. It is contended that the expression "other proceeding under the Code" after the words "enquiry and Trial," deliberately exclude the word "investigation". Another argument on the part of the accused applicants was that no advantage or help from Section 167 new Code can be drawn in order to interpret the Section 267 of new Code because while Section 167 refers only to Magistrate, the powers u/s 267 are to be exercised by a "criminal Court" when prayer to it for an order u/s 167 if necessary.
56. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that legislature does not use redundant words and since investigation is nothing but a process which include all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of the evidence by the police officer or by any officer, who is authorised by the Magistrate in this behalf, the expression "other proceeding under this Code," which obviously include investigation as also some other proceedings such as proceedings under Sections 107 145 133 etc. the legislature preferred to use those words rather than confine the broadness or generality of the existing expression by using the word ''investigation.'' It was further contended that the legislature knowing fully well all the foregoing sections including Section 167 has used the expressions "other proceeding under this Code" with the only objective to embrace all other proceedings under the Code which obviously includes the expression "investigation.
57. Having thus noted the rival contentions, a need arises to check up how the law has developed till the enactment of Section 267 of new Code by reference to the Acts, Rules, Regulations and Paragraphs noted above.
58. The Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 is no more in vogue. It stood repealed when the new Code came into being. Similar provisions had been made in the new Code by enacting Section 267 as noted above. To say that the legislature does not know that the accused already in custody in connection with investigation, inquiry, or trial in some Court may have to be handed over for an investigation, inquiry, or trial in another Court, will belittle the wisdom of the legislature. Moreover, while enacting Section 257 Cr.P.C. the legislature was well aware of the provisions of Sections 2 and 167 of the new Code. This apart, the distinction between the "judicial proceeding" and investigation has already been noticed above. While on the one hand, the collection of evidence by the Investigating Officer during investigation has never to be on oath, in a judicial proceeding on the other, evidence has to be taken on oath. The format appended as Schedules First and Second to the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 stand bodily lifted to the new Code with some corresponding changes. A perusal of Schedules First and Second of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 and Forms 36 and 37 of the new Code (referred to above) indicates that Form 37 relates to requirement of a prisoner for giving evidence in the Court. What is remarkable is that the paragraph preceding the paragraph beginning with a word "You are hereby required", the preceding paragraph in Form 37 is permitting the Court to incorporate the details of the complaint made to it. Such an indication was not provided in the language, used in the First Schedule of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955. The use of Form 37 therefore, is related to giving of evidence "IN THE MATTER NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT" (Emphasis by Court.)
59. If one contrasts Form 37 with the language used in Form 36 the difference will be obvious. The preamble part of Form 36 requires the Court to mention specifically the purpose of the warrant i.e. EITHER to answer a charge (state shortly the offence charged) OR for the purpose of proceeding (state shortly the particulars of the proceeding). The preamble says that the attendance of the said prisoner is required in the Court which issues order in Form 36. In the directive part of the Form, it has been provided that the Officer-In-charge of the Jail is required to produce the said prisoner under safe and sure conduct "for the purpose of said proceeding". (All emphasis by the Court).
60. This is, therefore, obvious that Form 37 requires the production of the prisoner for giving evidence in a matter pending before the Court issuing the warrant in Form 37 the Court concerned can require the presence through the warrant in Form 36 of any person in prison for answering to charge of offence.
61. Having thus noted the distinction between the contents and the types of the contigencies proposed to be met while issuing warrants in Forms 36 and 37 not much time should be required to deal with the entire case law on the point in issue which is discussed below.
62. Kanu Sanyal filed a writ petition from Vizakhapatnam Jail challenging the order of the Sub Magistrate Vizakhapatnam dated 30-5-1972 which was warrant for production of Kanu Sanyal u/s 3(2) of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 and addressed to the District Jail, Darjeeling where Kanu Sanyal was lodged in connection with two criminal cases under investigation in Darjeeling. In obedience to the said warrant, the District Jail Officials forwarded Kanu Sanyal to the Court of Sub Judge, Vizakhapatnam, who remanded him to custody from time to time pending, disposal of the committal proceedings. The point argued in connection with the custody of Kanu Sanyal at Vizakhapatnam was that the District Jail authorities at Darjeeling should have abstained from complying with the warrant of Kanu Sanyal, therefore, the detention in Vizakhapatnam was illegal. The said argument was repelled by the Supreme Court and it held that (Para 4 of AIR, Cri LJ):
This ground is wholly without substance. It overlooks the proviso to Section 6 of the Act. In order to arrive at a proper interpretation of Section 6 with the Proviso it is necessary to have a look at Section 3 and Section 5 as well. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 provides that any civil or criminal Court may, if it thinks that the evidence of any person confined in a prison is material in any matter pending before it, make any order in the form set forth in the First Schedule directing to the officer In charge of the prison. It is clear from this sub-section as well as the form set out in the First Schedule that the order contemplated by this subsection is an order for production of a per-, son detained in any prison for giving evidence and such an order may be made by a Civil Court or a criminal Court. Section 3 Sub-section (2) provides for a different situation. It says that any criminal Court may, if a charge of an offence against a person confined in any prison is made or pending before it, make an order in the form set forth in the Second Schedule, directing to the officer in charge of the prison. The order contemplates in this sub-section - and that is evident also from the form set forth in the Second Schedule - is an order of production for answering a charge and ex hypothesis that can only be by a criminal Court. The warrant for production in the present case was u/s 3 Sub-section (2) as the petitioner was admittedly required to be produced before the Special Magistrate Vizakhapatnam for answering the charges against him. Now, when an order of production is made under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 3 what is to happen? That is provided in Section 5 which says that upon delivery of such order of production to the officer in charge of the prison, that officer shall cause the person named in the order to be taken to the Court in which his attendance is required so as to be present in the Court at the time mentioned in the order.
63. Before going to the other case law, one comment has to be made. There is obviously a distinct change in the language used in Sections 267 to 271 of the new Code from the language which was used in Sections 3 to 7 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955. The intentional deviation from the old language into the new expression in parent and adjectival clause of Section 267 the pendency of the proceeding before the Court calling the prisoner is not a pre-condition. This has to be stated only to clarify that a criminal Court''s order requiring the presence of a person to answering a charge or for the purpose of such proceeding must include the need of the presence of such a person for investigating the matter for which application may have been moved by the investigating agency calling the prisoner from a prison outside jurisdiction of the said criminal Court.
64. In this Division Bench decision of this Court, there exists an observation towards the fag end of the judgment in para 15 (Penultimate para) to the effect that "the reliance placed by the learned Additional District Magistrate, Budaun, on the provisions of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 was also misconceived. These provisions apply only after a charge sheet has been submitted and the Court has taken cognizance of the case.
65. The said observation came in the following circumstances. Raghuraj Singh was wanted for a cognizable offence in district Budaun. Four months later, Raghuraj was arrested in Bulandshahr and was produced before the Additional District Magistrate (J) u/s 167 of old Code. A report was submitted that Raghuraj was to be put up for identification at the test identification parade. The prosecution made an application before the Additional District Magistrate (J) Budaun for transfer of the accused to Budaun which was allowed. The Additional District Magistrate (J) Bulandshahr intimated that since he has passed an earlier order for holding the test identification parade at Bulandshahr, he will not change the order. Meanwhile, Raghuraj Singh applied for the bail before the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. The Sessions Judge rejected the bail application but second bail application of Raghuraj Singh was allowed. On a reference to this Court by Additional District Magistrate Budaun, the Division Bench held that all the orders of the Additional District Magistrates (J) Bulandshahr were illegal. Resolving the conflict of opinions of two single Judge decisions, the law laid down was that neither Additional District Magistrate (J) Bulandshahr nor the Sessions Judge Bulandshahr could have passed the order with regard to the Budaun case. The reliance of the Budaun Court on the provisions of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 was disapproved, particularly as no charge sheet had been filed in his Court. This case, therefore, in no way lays down the scope or ambit of the Section 3 or any other section of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955.
Dharampal v. State of U.P. 1982 All LJ 130.
66. The facts involved in this case were that Dharampal and co-accused were in judicial custody in District Jail, Meerut. The Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut, received a production warrant from the Judicial Magistrate First Class Narwana in the State of Haryana, requiring the production of Dharampal and co-accused before him in connection with a murder case. In the meanwhile, Dharampal and co-accused obtained bail in the case in which they were detained in Meerut. The Superintendent, District Jail refused to release Dharampal and other co-accused on the ground that the said requisitions have been received from a criminal Court in Haryana. Taking into account the facts that the order of Haryana Court fixing date for the production of Dharampal and another co-accused had already expired, the Superintendent, District Jail at Meerut was not bound to transfer those petitioner and therefore, held that both of them be set at liberty but could be re-arrested when justified.
67. This case was concerned with the period of validity of the order or warrant of the Court requiring the production of accused from a Jail.
Mohammed Daud alias Mohd. Saleem v. Superintendent of District Jail, Moradabad 1993 All LJ 430.
68. Mohammed Daud was confined in the District Jail Moradabad and wanted that he should not be transferred in pursuance of the production warrant issued from the City Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. After discussing several other allied issues, such as, validity of the detention, even if the initial order was bad, subsequent order u/s 167(2) was valid or not etc., it has been observed as under:-
39-40. On behalf of the respondents, the proposition that the existence of a valid remand is the foundation of the authority to detain a person in custody, is not disputed but it is contended that, in the instant case there does exist a valid remand. .
...The respondents have also disputed the contention that the detention and custody of the petitioner in the N.D.P.S. case automatically terminated on the petitioner being remanded to custody in the Moradabad case. In the instant case the transfer having been authorised by the Special Judge, Greater Bombay, the bar in Section 269(b), Cr.P.C. also stood removed...
. . .The confinement of the petitioner after 12-2-1992 in the District Jail, Moradabad, thus is only for the purpose of compliance of the mandate of Section 270 of the Cr.P.C. regarding taking back the petitioner to Central prison Nasik in view of his confinement in the said prison, in connection with the NDPS Act case at Bombay, and the said case admittedly still being pending before the Special Judge City Sessions Court Greater Bombay....For all the above-stated reasons, therefore, in our opinion, there is no merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in any of these petitions and these are liable to be dismissed.
69. The aforesaid Division Bench decision in Mohammad Daud may be interpreted to support the argument that the transfer of the prisoner from Jail to Court calling his attendance would require a specific order of remand from the said Criminal Court. It is respectfully submitted that this view would be correct.
70. Bhajan Vir Singh and co-accused were facing a trial and consequently detained in Ambala Central Jail. They were also required in connection with some other offence in Patiala. The State Government passed an order u/s 268, Cr.P.C. asking Bhajan Vir Singh and co-accused not to be removed from Central Jail Ambala till the trial was proceeding. The aforesaid order of the State Government was challenged in the instant case.
71. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court discussed the contents of the State Government''s aforesaid order and then taking notice of the provisions contained in Section 258 of the new Code, after making reference to the Hon''ble Supreme Court decision in
72. Ranjeet Singh was in the confinement in the District Jail, Faizabad in connection with a murder case as he got his bail bond cancelled and re-entered the Jail on 12-8-1994. Ranjeet Singh''s complicity came to be known in the murder case of Susheel Kumar Misra who killed on 7-8-1994 in Lucknow. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow passed an order u/s 267 of new Code requiring attendance of Ranjeet Singh from Faizabad Jail to his Court in connection with the murder case of Susheel Kumar Misra which was challenged. A learned single Judge of this Court held:
...the words ''or for the purposes of any proceedings against him'' occurring in Section 267(1)(a) are compendious and include proceedings encompassing all stages including remand proceedings and even proceedings of an investigation....There is yet another aspect of the matter. The mere fact that committal proceedings are pending in respect of the applicant at Faizabad does not take away the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Lucknow to pass an order u/s 267 of the Code and for this reason too, the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow does not suffer from any infirmity.
73. Moti Lal Sachdeva, a resident of Kota, had a F.I.R. against him in Kota. Another F.I.R. was lodged against him in Indore. The police at Kota applied for a production warrant from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota for bringing Moti Lal Sachadeva from Indore to Kota, An order was issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kota and a formal production warrant was issued. The detenue was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who passed an order authorising police to arrest him in Kota case. Formal order of arrest was shown on 9-2-1995. He was remanded to the police custody from time to time. This order dated 9-2-1995, the remand order, was challenged in the cited case. In para 3 of the decision, a reference has been made to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Harshad S. Mehta v. C.B.I. (1992) 3 Cur Cri R 2793. But the case of Harshad S. Mehta has not been produced by either of the parties for perusal by this Court. However, referring to the said decision, the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court observed that the words "other proceeding" have been examined at length in the said Harshad S. Mehta case decision of Delhi High Court and it has been held that it does not include investigation by the police.
74. Thus the argument was that Moti Lal Sachdeva was not and could not be held to be in detention at Kota and the question of legality or illegality of the said detention at Kota, could not arise. It was said that the attendance of the detenue was required after counter signature of the Court at Indore was obtained and therefore, the action of the Magistrate at Kota may not have been valid. The Division Bench then discussed the prayer in the actual application for the production warrant and held as under:
Hence purpose for which person confined or detained in jail could be ordered to be produced before the Court is limited. Investigation of the offence by the police and interrogation cannot fall under the purposes which are included in Section 267 of the Code. We are in agreement with the Delhi High Court view that investigation by police cannot be included in any other proceedings as they are not proceedings before the Court.
75. Having made the aforesaid observations, the Division Bench ultimately held that since the petitioner''s husband was no longer in illegal detention, the habeas corpus petition was dismissed because by the time the habeas corpus petition was heard, Moti Lal Sachadeva was transferred from Indore to Kota.
76. With great respect to the Division Bench decision, it may be pointed out that neither all the provisions in the old Code and new Code and other relevant laws noted above have been taken note of nor the quoted observations would go beyond "obiter Dicta," therefore, in spite of best efforts this Court could not peruse itself to follow the said reasoning.
77. C. Natesan accused/prisoner had crime No. 1431 of 1998 under Sections 409 and 420, I.P.C. registered against him in Madras in which he was arrested and was remanded to in judicial custody. Other First Information Reports against C. Natesan came to be registered in Ahmedabad, Hyderabad and State of Maharashtra also alleging duping people and collecting several crores rupees through fraudulent financial "chemes. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Detective Branch, Ahmedabad regarding one first information report there and Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Hyderabad as also the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, State of Maharashtra appear to have approached the criminal Court at Chennai for transfer of C. Natesan to their respective States in connection with cases registered against him at respective Police Stations. The prosecution application was allowed and Prisoner Transfer Warrant (for short P.T.W) was directed for the production of C. Natesan from Jail at Tamil Nadu to the Courts at Hyderabad, Ahmedabad etc. On these facts a petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. was filed challenging the issuance of the P.T.W. and consequent order of transfer of the prisoner C. Natesan to Hyderabad. Learned single Judge who heard the matter dismissed the petition, upholding the order with the further directions that arrest shall be shown in the case where prisoner C. Natesan was required to be produced. It was held that transfer order u/s 267, Cr.P.C. does not affect the personal liberty of the accused nor the desire of the person to be obtained before passing such an order. It was said that the recourse of the provisions of Sections 267 to 271, Cr.P.C. could be taken during investigation under the new Code.
78. With profound respect to the learned single Judge, this Court would agree with many of the reasoning appearing in the said judgment but has reservations in concurring with part of the views expressed, which have been underlined by this Court in paragraphs 16 and 17 quoted below :-
But however in the cases before this Court, such a situation of the prisoner being asked to be produced before the Court concerned for the purpose of interrogation, has not arisen. On the contrary, the P. T. warrant issued by the Court, at Karnataka is for production of the prisoner before the Court and the P. T. warrant issued by the Court at Hyderabad is also for production of the prisoner before the Court. I am in agreement with the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the judgment referred to supra that the Court cannot be used as a tool to bring an accused in judicial custody in another case for being produced before it under the prisoner transfer warrants to enable the investigating agency to effect arrest. (in para 16)...
When the police officer arrests an accused, who is already in judicial custody in respect of another crime, then he has no legal right to remove the arrested person from the judicial custody to a prison on his own. Only to meet such a situation namely. when arrest is shown of a person, who is already in judicial custody in respect of another crime in my opinion, the Code provides remedy u/s 267(1) of the Code. In this case, the respondents, on whose files crimes have been registered have not shown arrest till date. In other words, I am of the considered opinion that unless arrest is shown and the Court is informed about the said arrest, though the forwarding of the accused to the Court along with the report is practically impossible on account of his detention in custody in respect of another crime, the Court may have no authority to pass any order relating to the transfer of the prisoner.
In this case as already stated since arrest is not shown in the crimes registered outside the city of Chennai, prima facie the issuance of the P. T. warrant may be without authority of law.
79. Having held so, the learned single Judge then further held that :
Under these circumstances under the inherent powers of this Court I declare that the P. T. warrants issued in these cases are not the result of abuse of any process of Court but they have been issued by Courts having jurisdiction. I also hold that the Court will have jurisdiction to issue such orders only when arrest is shown and the Court is informed about the same, though the accused is not forwarded to the Court for the reason that he is already in judicial custody in another case. But on the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I hold that the orders issued u/s 267 of the Code are in order subject to the arrest of the petitioner, who is stated to be in judicial custody in respect of a crime registered in the city of Chennai, is shown.
80. This matter has to be examined in a little more elaborated manner. As already noticed above, the provisions of Section 267 have already been made applicable during investigation, therefore, the Investigating Officer must satisfy the Court that there is material for seeking transfer of the accused confined in other jail. If the criminal Courts'' transit warrant or ''B'' Warrant is executed and the prisoner is brought and produced, the Courts custody is to continue over the prisoner because of having secured the production of the prisoner through the ''B'' Warrant.
81. If an action is a practical impossibility, no Court would be justified in insisting upon that action in a formal manner. The Criminal Court, when issuing ''B'' Warrant has to satisfy itself on the justification for issuance of such warrant. The fact that the prosecutor/Investigating Officer is seeking ''B'' Warrant regarding the prisoner from the Criminal Court, itself amounts showing the prisoner to be under custody. Whether or not on merits a ''B'' Warrant will be issued is a totally different matter, which has to be settled by that Court when it orders the issuance of the warrant. The arrest of the prisoner shall have been an accomplished fact known to the Court issuing ''B'' Warrant and the Investigating Officer seeking the ''B'' Warrant. Therefore, on the production of the accused in the criminal Court issuing the production warrant, his remand to judicial custody or police custody, has to be only in accordance with the provisions of Section 167 of the new Code.
82. Any other interpretation to the provisions contained under Sections 257 to 271 of the new Code is likely to result in a total chaos in the administration of criminal law by the police officer and subordinate Court. A hardened criminal may get himself confined to jail in another offence and the Investigating Officer of the concerned crime, in which the accused may be wanted, shall be running from pillar to post without being able to secure the custody of the accused. Examination during the course of the investigation or for holding test identification parade, or getting some discoveries made at his instance u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act or for getting handwriting finger prints or measurements of the accused, or get some other test done which is permissible in law, may be some of the reasons for obtaining ''B'' Warrant/Transit warrant/ Transfer warrant or by whatever name the order of the concerned criminal Court may be called, by the Investigating Officer/prosecutor, regarding all of which the existence of relevant provisions in different laws have been referred to in the earlier part of this judgment.
83. The legislature being the author of the laws is fully aware of the inapplicability of the provisions in the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955, came to enact the provisions of Sections 267 to 271 in the new Code and introduced a parallel new Chapter XVI-A of the Civil Procedure Code. It is also aware that Section 542 of the old Code was also no more available. It is also aware that the Investigating Officer is within his rights to investigate a cognizable offence and every Magistrate having local jurisdiction shall be bound to unless for special reasons, it is refused, issue bailable or non-bailable warrant for production of an accused under arrest whenever the Investigating Officer successfully makes out a case for such warrant being issued. It has also been noticed that appendix "Q" provides detailed directions with regard to the transfer of the prisoner on ''B'' warrant. No material has been furnished which may indicate that said appendix has been obliterated. Without going into the issue as to whether the said appendix can still operate, the existing provisions in Sections 267 to 271 of new Code take care of necessary situations which may have to be encountered by a Jailer at the place where accused is in custody and also the Jailer at the prison where he may have to be sent on execution of ''B'' Warrant. The relevant provisions of new Code regarding these steps have also been noticed above. Legislature also remembers that any body who is lodged in Jail, cannot come out unless a Court or authority directs him to be taken out of the said jail custody. This will be permissible only by a suitable order or warrant as envisaged or empowered by the provisions of the new Code. In view of the language expressed and provisions made in various sections of the new Code, it has to be held that the moment the application is moved by the investigating authority before the criminal Court u/s 267(1) of the new Code, it is prima facie shown his inability to obtain the presence of that accused for interrogation or examination during the investigation and that is enough information to the Court that the Investigating Officer requires the physical presence of the said detained or imprisoned, who is, therefore, required "for answering a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceeding before him.
84. With profound respect to the Hon''ble Judge deciding the
85. The observations of the learned single Judge in Mukesh case 1998 All LJ 2206 : 1999 Cri LJ 86 (supra) as contained in para 5 thereof, is based on the language used in First part of Section 267, Cr.P.C. It appears that allied provisions contained in Form 36 and Form 37 added by Schedule Second by new Code, were not placed for consideration by the Hon''ble Judge, nor were the other relevant laws placed before him. Therefore, aforesaid judgment does not lay down the correct law.
86. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held hereby that the expression "other proceedings under this Code", as mentioned in the first part of the parent clause in Sub-section (1) of Section 267 and expression "for the purposes of said proceeding" in the last part thereof, includes "investigation" under the new Code.
87. Let the Papers got to the learned single Judge, to be dealt with in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made above.
