K PALINIYAPPAN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak had admitted the petitioner to bail subject to his executing personal bond in the amount of Rs.20,000/ - with two sureties. An application was made to this Court for modifying the condition imposed by the learned Magistrate. THE conditions have also been modified, but during the hearing of the matter and on perusal of the case diaries this Court found that the petitioner has been kept in wrongful confinement, for a long time, therefore by order dated 21-10-1998 explanation was called from the concerned Police Officer. THE explanation was furnished and in the explanation it was stated that the petitioner was not kept in wrongful confinement but has been sent to judicial custody on proper orders from the Magistrate concerned. In the light of this, the Magistrate's explanation was also called for. THE explanation is received. Record also has been received. THE record makes an interesting reading. THE accused-petitioner was produced for the first lime before the learned Magistrate on 26/08/1998, the Magistrate remanded him to the judicial custody upto 8-9-1998. On 8-9-1998 the accused was not-produced before him but he took up the papers and recorded. Accused not produced from District Jail, Sangareddy, CS not filed. Hence, Remand extended till 22-9-1998. Inform to the Jail authorities". On 22-9-1998 he again recorded that, "Accused not produced from Dist. Jail, Sangareddy. CS not filed. Hence RE till 6-10-1998. Inform to the Jail authorities." On 6-10-1998 again the same thing was recorded, although the accused was not produced remand was extended till 17-10-1998. On 17-10-1998 in similar circumstances he extended the remand upto 30-10-1998. On 30-10-1998 he again extended the remand till 12-11-1998. On 12-11-1998 he recorded, 'Release Order issued yesterday'. In all the orders the remand was extended mechanically without any request, without production of accused or case diary before the Magistrate. He directed informing the Jail authorities about the extension. THErefore, the Police Officer concerned says that the Police did not ask for any remand, no request was made directly orders of extension of remand were communicated by the Magistrate to the Jail authorities. THErefore, beyond first 15 days they are not responsible for holding the petitioner in custody. In his explanation the Magistrate states that a request was made by the learned APPO of his Court who represents the prosecution for extension of the remand. This is obviously an after thought. Had the APPO made any request it would have been recorded in the orders. THE Magistrate further states that he had extended the remand from time to time for a period of 60 days under proviso of Section 167(2). He submits that due to the rush of work the reasons that the APPO had sought extension of remand was not recorded in the docket orders. He also relies on a judgment of Madras High Court in THE State v. Mathavanam, 1994 (2) ALT (Crl.) 607 (Mad.). I have gone through the judgment. Even this judgment go against' the mode which has been adopted by the learned Magistrate in this case. In the case before Madras High Court, no remand extension application had been made before the Magistrate, accused were produced before him, he released the detenues on their personal bond on the ground that no extension of remand was sought. THE Court found that the Magistrate has to satisfy himself on the basis of record as to whether remand was needed to be extended or not. I have my own doubts about the law laid down by the Madras High Court, but even in the present case if this judgment is applied it goes contrary to what the Magistrate has done. If application of mind is necessary for refusing to extend the remand it is still more necessary in extending the remand because in that case the liberty of a person is curfailed. Mechanical orders have been passed by the Magistrate stating therein that accused not produced, remand extended. In any case, the accused was not produced before the Magistrate while extending the remand and no records were also produced after the accused was remanded to custody for the first time. Besides, the learned Magistrate has completely forgotten to see sub-section (b) of Section 167(2) Cr.PC which provides that, "no Magistrate shall authorise detention in any custody under this Section unless the accused is produced before him." This requirement of producing the accused before the Magistrate is not only a requirement when the first remand is given, but each time when the Magistrate remands a person to custody the person must be before him. THEre is a purpose behind this and the purpose is that, once a Magistrate decides to remand the accused of extend the remand he will have an opportunity of opposing such an order. In this case, admittedly the accused was never produced before the Magistrate after the first remand was given. This is very unfortunate that the Magistrate was not aware even of the basic requirements of passing an order of extension of remand.

(2.) THE accused has already been released, therefore this Court does not intend to pass any further orders in the matter. THE matter stands closed.