PUSHPENDRA SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner complains against his detention,

(2.) THE relevant facts are these : The petitioner Pushpendra Singh is involved in a crime punishable under Section 396/412/120-B of I. P. C. He appears to have been arrested on 26th of September, 1982 and remanded to jail custody under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate continued to remand him to jail custody on subsequent dates to wit, 10th of Oct. and 23rd of Oct. , 1982, 5th and 18th of Nov. , 1982, 1st and 14th of Dec, 1982 and lastly on 5th of Jan. 1983. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court on 11th of Jan. 1983. The accused was present in custody before the court when the aforesaid committal order was passed. The learned Magistrate directed that subject to any order which may be passed by the Sessions Court, the accused shall remain in custody until the conclusion of the trial and further directed that the petitioner shall be produced before the Sessions Court on 24th of Jan. 1983. The petitioner was produced before the Sessions Judge on 24th of Jan. 1983 in compliance to the aforesaid order dated 11-1-1983. The learned Sessions Judge directed the record to be put up for fixing a date in near future. It was produced before him on 14-4-1983 on which date he transferred the case to the court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital. 20th of May, 1983 was fixed for appearance of the accused in the court of the II Additional Sessions Judge. It so appears that the petitioner was released on parole and did not personally appear in the court of II Additional Sessions Judge on 20th of May, 1983. An application for the exemption of personal attendance was allowed and the case was adjourned to 20th June, 1983 for framing of charges. The petitioner Pushpendra Singh was produced in custody before the Court on 20th of June, 1983 but as Nirankar a co-aecused was on parole, so the case was again adjourned to 7th of July, 1983 for framing of charges and the accused Pushpendra Singh was remanded by a warrant to jail custody till the aforesaid date. Again on 7th of July, 1983 the case was adjourned to 8th of Aug. 1983 on the same ground and the accused who was present in custody was directed to be produced on the next date. The case was again adjourned to 17-9-1983 due to the absence of coaccused Nirankar on 8-8-1983. The accused was present in custody and was directed to be produced on the next date. The orders dated 7th of July and 8th of August directing the petitioner to be produced on the next date fixed, have been passed on the warrant for intermediate custody dated 20th June, 1983. It so appears that on 17th September, 1983 the case was again adjourned to 22nd of October, 1983 and the accused who was present in custody was directed to be produced before the court on the next date. This order has also been passed on the aforesaid custody warrant. The accused was produced before the court of II Additional Sessions Judge on 22nd of Oct. 1983 but the case was adjourned to 17th of Nov. 1983. The learned Sessions Judge on this date prepared a fresh warrant for intermediate custody directing the Jailor of District Jail, Nainital to receive and keep the petitioner in custody till the aforesaid date to wit, 17th of November, 1983 and produce him before the court on that date. On 17th of November, 1983 the case was adjourned to 25th of November and the accused who was present in custody was directed to be produced on 25th of November, 1983. Again on 25th of November, 1983 the case was adjourned to 26th of November, 1983 and the accused who was in custody, before the court was directed to be produced on the next date. Similarly on 26th November, 1983 the accused who was in custody before the court was directed to be produced on 16th of January, 1984 because the case was adjourned for the date. All these three orders dated 17th, 25th and 26th of November, 1983 have been passed on the custody warrant dated 22nd of October, 1983.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the validity of the petitioner's detention in pursuance of the order passed under Section 209 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Magistrate on two grounds --firstly, that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is not a proper order and does not fulfil the requirements of the provisions contained in Section 209 (b) and secondly, on the ground that the order passed by the learned Magistrate has not been communicated to the jail authorities. The warrants of remand dated 7th July, 8th August, 17th September, 22nd October, 17th November and 26th November have been attacked on the ground that they do not constitute proper warrants of remand as envisaged under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.