MOHAMMAD YUSUF ABBASI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two writ petitions under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Mo-hammad Yusuf Abbas and Sheo Murat Singh for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the release of the petitioners from the District Jail, Ghazipur, where they are lodged at present. They arise out of similar facts and we, therefore, propose to decide both these writ petitions by one judgment.

(2.) It appears that the petitioners were arrested on 11-9-1958 in pursuance of a warrant issued by a Magistrate of the 1st Class under Section 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that there was an immediate apprehension of the breach of the peace from their side. After their arrest they were produced before the Magistrate. Notice under Section 112, Cr. P. C. was read out to them and before further proceedings could be taken against them Sheo Murat Singh made an application to the Court that further proceedings be stayed as he intended to apply for the transfer of the case to some other Court, Thereupon the proceedings were stayed and the petitioners were remanded to jail custody during me pendency of the inquiry.

(3.) It has been contended before us on behalf of the petitioners that the order of remand passed by the learned Magistrate for the detention of the petitioners in Jail and the consequent detention of the petitioners in jail, was illegal on the ground that the notice under Section 112, Cr. P. C. had not been read out to the petitioners nor after their arrest by the police they were produced before a Magistrate. It, was further contended that even if it was accepted that the petitioners after their arrest were produced before a Magistrate and the order under Section 112, Cr. P. C. was read over to them there was not sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 112 because the substance of the information on which the learned Magistrate apprehended that there was an immediate apprehension of the breach of the peace had not been, mentioned in the order under Section 112, Cr. P. C. and, as such, the order was illegal. It may be mentioned here that the allegations in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners that they were not produced before any Magistrate after their arrest by the police and that the order under Section 112, Cr. P. C. had not been read over to them, has been denied on behalf of the State in the counter-affidavit and we have seen no satisfactory reason to disbelieve that part of the allegation contained in the counter-affidavit.