RAM NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by one Ram Narayan Singh on behalf of four gentlemen, namely, Dr. S.P. Mukerjee, Shri. C. N. Chatterjee, Pandit Nandlal Sharma and Pandit Guru Dutt Vaid, who are the real petitioners in the case. These persons were arrested on the evening of 6-3-1953, and they are now being prosecuted for alleged defiance of an order prohibiting meetings and processions in the area in question, an offence punishable under S. 188, Penal Code.

(2.) Their detention is sought to be justified on the basis of two remand orders, the one alleged to have been passed by Mr. Dhillon, Additional District Magistrate Delhi, at about 8 p.m. on 6-3-1953, and the other alleged to have been passed by the trying Magistrate at about 3 p. m. on 9th March while adjuring the case on the representation made before him that a habeas corpus petition was being moved in this Court.

(3.) Various question of law and fact have been argued before us by Mr. Sethi on behalf of the petitioner, but we consider it unnecessary to enter upon a discussion of those questions, as it is now conceded that the first order of remand dated 6th March even assuming it was a valid one expired on 9th March and is no longer in force. As regards the order of remand alleged to have been made by the trying Magistrate on 9th March, the position is as follows :- The trying Magistrate was obviously proceeding at that stage under S. 344, Criminal P. C., which requires him, if he chooses to adjourn the case pending before him 'to remand by warrant the accused, if in custody," and it goes on to provide : Every order made under this section by a Court other than a High Court shall be in writing signed by the presiding Judge or Magistrate. The order of the Magistrate under this section was produced before us in compliance with an order of this Court made on 10th March, which directed the production in this Court as early as possible of the records before the Additional District Magistrate and the trying Magistrate together with the remand papers for inspection by counsel for the petitioner. The order produced merely directs the adjournment of the case till 11th March and contains no direction for remanding the accused to custody till that date. Last evening, four slips of paper were handed to the Registrar of this Court at 5-20 P.M. On one side they purport to be warrants of detention dated 6th March addressed to the Superintendent of Jail, Delhi, directing the accused to be kept in judicial lock-up and to be produced in Court on 9-3-1953. These warrants contain on their back the following endorsement: "Remanded to judicial till 11-3-53".