BINEESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned Single Judge of this Court referred this matter to the Division Bench to consider the question whether under S.267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Magistrate can issue a production warrant and remand the accused who is already in remand in another case, for the purpose of enabling the police for interrogation. In Bineesh v. State of Kerala ( 2006 (1) KLT 505 ) learned Single Judge of this Court held that it is not possible as under S.73 arrest warrant can be issued to a person who is accused in a non bailable offence only if he is evading arrest and that also can be exercised only against a person residing in the local limits of the Magistrate. Learned Judge held as follows:

(2.) S.267 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

(3.) As held by the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Yadav Kochachade ( 2000 CriLJ 959 ), proceedings under S.267 mean and include an action or prosecution and all steps taken in furtherance of prosecution, i.e., arrest, remand, interrogation and investigation. In Ranjeet Singh v. State ( 1995 CriLJ 3505 ), Allahabad High Court held that the words "or for the purpose of any proceedings against him" in S.267(1)(a) are compendious and include proceedings encompassing all stages and have in their fold remand proceedings and even proceedings of an investigation. The mere fact that committal proceedings in respect of the accused are pending in one district, does not take away the jurisdiction of the Magistrate of another place to pass an order under S.267. In Bobby v. State of U.P. ( 2000 CriLJ 4125 ) a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that the provisions of S.267 can be made applicable during the investigation. In C.B.I. Special Investigation Cell I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni ( AIR 1992 SC 1768 ) it was held that though the police custody shall not exceed the first fifteen days, that limitation under S.167 shall not apply to a different occurrence in which complicity of the arrested accused is disclosed. It is further held that it 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. The Apex Court in the above case held as follows: