A. LAKSHMANARAO versus JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, IST CLASS, PARVATIPURAM & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 822 · Decided: 24-11-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

822 
A. LAKSHMANARACJ 
v. 
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, lST CLASS, PARVATIPURAM 
&ORS. 
November 24, 1970 
[S. M. S!KRI, V. BHARGAVA AND I. D. DUA; JJ.J 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s. 344(1A)-Validiiy-Power to 
adjourn and power to remand-Whether guidelines absent;--Order of re-· 
mand whether must be made in presence of accusecl to be valid. 
The petitioner was arrested on July 17, 1970 and· was produced before 
a first class Magistrate next day when he was remanded to judicial custody 
under s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. for IS days. He was inform~d at the time of 
remand that his arrest was in connection with a case relatina to daco!ty 
and murder and conspiracy to commit the same. Although a charge-sheet 
had been submitted against about 148 persons accused in the case the· 
petioner's name was not among them, because as the police later explained,. 
investigations against him had not been completed. The petitioner object' 
ed to a second remar.d on August I, 1970 but that very day the prosecu-
tion .filed a supplementary charge-sheet including his name. 
Remand was 
then extended upto August 6 and thereafter upto August 20, 1970. 
On· 
the last mentioned date he was not produced before the magistrate because 
of alleged want of escort and the remand was extended· in his absence. In 
a petition under Art, 32 of the Constitution the petitioner challenged his 
detention from August I onwards. The remand order of August 20 was 
·challenged on the ground that it was made. in his absence and it was urged' 
that the law does not. permit remand without actual ptoduction of the 
accused before the Court. The constitutional validity of s: 344(1A) and: 
of the Explanation to the section was also challenged. 
HEW: (I) In view of this Court's decision in Raj Narain's case it' 
could no longer be urged that the production of an accused before the 
magistrate for the ·purpose o'f remand was a necessary requirement. though 
as a rule of caution it is highly desirable that the accused should be per-
sonally produced before the magistrate so that he may if he so chooses 
make a representation against his remand. 
The orde·r of remand dated 
August 20, 1970 was in the circumstances not contrary to law so as to 
render the petitioner's custody illegal justifying his release by thi~ Court 
on habeas corpus. 
It was still open to 'the ·petitioner to apply for bail to 
the appropriate court in accordance. with law. 
Raf Narain v. Supdt. Central Jail, New Delhi, [1971] 2 S.C.R. 147 
applied. [826 G-827 CJ 
(ii)Sub-section (IA) of s. 344 of the code vests in the court seized 
of a criffl~nal . case, power to postpone the commencement df or adjourn 
any inquiry or trial before him by order in writing stating the reason• 
therefor from time to time on such terms as the court thinks fit and tor 
such time as it considers reasonabie. 
When the case is so postponed or 
adjourned the court may .also by a warrant remand the accused, if in 
custody. The discretion to adjourn being vested in a wurt of law has to 
be exercised judicially on welJ recognised principles and is therefore im· 
mune from challenge on the ground of arbitrariness dr want of guidelines. 
The judicial power to postpone or adjourn the proceedings is to be exer· 
... 
c 
D 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
LAXSHMANARAO v. JUDL. MAGISTRATE (Dua, J.) 
823 
ci- only tr from the absence of witnesses or any other reasonable cause 
the court considers it necessary or desirable to do so. It has to record its 
reasons for so doing. 
Similarly the discretion to order remand of the 
accused is to be exercised judicially keeping in view al( the facts and cir-
cumstances of the case including the nature of the charge the gravity o'i 
the alleged offence, the area of investigation, the antecedents of the accus-
ed and all other relevant factors which may appropriately help the court 
in determining whether to keep the accused in custody or to release him 
on bail. Reasonable cause for remand according to the explanation covers 
a case where sufficient evidence is obtained to raise suspicion abOut the 
complicity of an accused person in the offence and it appears likely :bat 
more evidence may be obta:ned by remand. (828 C-E] 
Further, both the order of adjournment as well as the order of remand 
are •ubject to review by the superior cpurts in accordance with law. The 
c~lemge to the validity di s. 344.( IA). on the ground of want of guide-
lines must therefore fail. [829 H-830 A) 
(iii) The suggestion that the explan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.