R K GARG RAJENDRA KUMAR GARG RAJ KUMAR VOHRA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL SAHARANPUR:DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAHARANPUR:SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 319 and 372 of 1970, filed by Rajendra Kumar Garg and Writ Petition No. 323 of 1970, filed by Raj Kumar Vohra and others. By these petitions Rajendra Kumar Garg questioned his arrest and detention under S. 107/117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for his trial for offences under Section 188, etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contended inter alia that the provisions of Section 144 and Ch. VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure were violative of the Constitution and were, therefore void after 26/01/1950. The other petitioners also had urged the same grounds. By an order in Writ Petitions Nos. 77, 219 and 307 of 1970, delivered earlier, but for which reasons have been given today, we have held these provisions to be valid and operative. These grounds, therefore, fail. Since Writ Petition No. 323 was based only on these grounds it must fail but no order is necessary as we understand that persons proceeded against under S. 107/117 have since been released and the cases withdrawn against then).

(2.) This leaves over the contentions of Rajendra Kumar Garg regarding the validity of the order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, apart from the constitutional validity of the section itself which we have already upheld. It may be mentioned that the petitioner moved another petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the High court of Allahabad relating to his arrest for an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and the matter is pending there. We will not, therefore, consider that aspect of the case as, according to the practice of this court, no pronouncement is made on a point on which another petition is pending in the High court. We will, therefore, confine our observations to the validity of the order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code as a legal order under that section.

(3.) The contention is that it is too wide and goes beyond the report of the police which itself is vague and gives no real information, that it imposes a blanket ban on all the Districts under the directions of the government of the State and that the remand for trial of an offence under Section 188) Indian Penal Code) on top of a remand under S. 107/117 is invalid. The question of a second remand was also argued the other way round) that is, after a remand for trial of the offence there could be no remand under S. 107/117 (3). The High court was moved under Section 561 (a) and has stayed the proceedings under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.