STATE OF RAJASTAN Vs. SANTOSH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Following question has been referred to us for adjudication :- "Whether production warrant requiring attendance of a prisoner lodged in judicial custody in one case can be issued under Section 267, Cr. P.C. for the purpose of investigation in another case and whether the expression "other proceeding" and "for the purpose of any proceedings" used in Sections 267(1) and 267(1)(a) respectively would include "investigation" as defined in Section 2(h) Cr. P.C.?

(2.) The facts giving rise to this question may briefly be stated. One Yogesh Vijay submitted a written report on October 9, 2000 at the police station Shipra Path Jaipur with the averments that 4-5 persons forcibly entered his house around 8 p.m. tied his hands and legs and made him to sit in a room. The miscreants had a 'Katta' (country made gun) and knives. They demanded ornaments and cash and threatened him for dire consequences if their demand was not fulfilled. They collected all the valuables and fled away. After they had left, the informant somehow manage to untie himself. On coming out of the house he found his Car RJ- 14-IC-6516 and Scooter RJ-14-11M-7263 missing. The Police Station Shipra Path on the basis of this information chalked out regular FIR and investigation commenced. In the course of investigation it was revealed that accused Santosh Yadav was involved in the matter. Santosh Yadav was already arrested by the Police Station Agra (U.P.) on November 11, 2000 in connection with the offence under Section 4/25 Arms Act in FIR No. 504/2000 and had been remanded to judicial custody by Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra City (U.P.). While he was in police custody, Car RJ- 14-IC-6516 belonging to informant Yogesh Vijay got recovered at his instance. When the fact came to the knowledge of the SHO PS Shipra Path Jaipur, he made request to the CJM Agra City for handing over the custody of accused Santosh Yadav. The CJM Agra City then directed that the production warrant on Proforma 'B' should be got issued from the competent authority. The SHOPS Shipra Path Jaipur thereafter moved application to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur City for passing appropriate orders in the matter. Learned Magistrate rejected the application vide order dated November 14, 2000 holding that as per the provisions of Section 267(1) Cr. P.C. he did not have jurisdiction to issue production warrant of the accused. In doing so the learned Magistrate relied on Bharti Sachdeva v. State of Raj 1996 Cri LJ 2102 for the proposition that words "any proceedings" as mentioned in Section 267(1) Cr. P.C. do not include investigation of the offence by the police as they are not the proceedings before the Court, therefore issuance of production warrant was not justified. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 8 Jaipur City, the State of Rajasthan preferred revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur City. Learned Sessions Judge while concurring with the view expressed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the revision petition vide order dated May 21, 2001. The State of Rajasthan then approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of the orders of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge Jaipur City. Learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated November 27, 2001 was of the view that issue involve in the matter required reconsideration by a Larger Bench. That is how the matter has been placed before us.

(3.) Looking to the nature of controversy we propose to consider the issue elaborately.