MUSTAFA USMAN LANDGE Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents have placed on record copy of the judicial order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and submits that the Jail Superintendant should not have carried out or implemented or complied with the order dated 29.11.2012. Section 269 of the CrPC which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner reads as under:-

(2.) WE do not think the said provision is applicable to the factual matrix of the present case. The petitioner was detained in Delhi and was in judicial custody in FIR No.16/2012 under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 16/18/18A and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. In the meanwhile, production warrants were issued by a court in Pune. Noticing the said facts Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi has passed the order dated 29.11.2012. Certain and specific directions have been issued in the said order. For the sake of completeness we reproduce the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, which reads as under:-

(3.) ANY other interpretation would lead to incongruities and undesirable situations where an accused, who is facing prosecution in different courts for separate offences, can delay the subsequent proceedings or investigation relating to subsequent offences till the first proceedings have concluded or come to an end. That obviously was not and cannot be the legislative intent. This would be destructive and prevent speedy disposal of other cases involving heinous or serious offences, whereas the offence in the first case may not be so serious. We cannot ignore that committal proceedings, trial etc. in an earlier crime may get prolonged. The interpretation as suggested by the petitioner would enure to the benefit of an accused facing trial in another court and result in stay of proceedings in other courts. An unintended benefit/advantage to the accused would follow as by long lapse of time the evidence may fade away. Cr.P.C. is a procedural law and has to be read in a practical and pragmatic manner to make it meaningful and not as a procedure, which creates impediment or will cripple proceedings in other cases. Cr.P.C. does not postulate that proceedings will continue only in one case. The following observations of a single Judge of Allahabad High Court in Ranjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, 1995 Cri.L.J. 3505, are apposite:-