RAJ NARAIN versus SUPDT. CENTRAL JAIL, NEW DELHI.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 147 · Decided: 11-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I .Ii 
RAJ NARAIN 
1'. 
SUPDT. CENTRAL JAIL, NEW DELHI. 
September 11, 1970 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., 
J. M. SHELAT, 
G. K. MITTER, c. A. VAID!ALINGAM, A. 
I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
\/. BHARGAVA, 
1'c RAY ANIJ 
Code of Crbninal Procedure, 1898, s. 
344--Magistrate 
reniandiug 
arrested person to judicial custody-Further remand lvhefl not nurde in 
presence of prisoner whether illegal. 
R was arrested on August 20, 1970 under ss. 107/117 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure and was remanded to judicial custody by the City 
Magistrate Lucknow. 
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed 
in this Court and on August 22, 1970 this Court ordered him to be trans-
ferred to Tihar Central Jail Delhi for personal appearance before the 
Court. 
R's original remand as ordered by the City Magistrate was till 
August 28, 1970. On that date at 4 p.m. the Superintendent Central Jail. 
Delhi sought directions from the court in view of the fact that the remand 
was due to expire at midnight. 
The court ordered that in the situation 
that hod arisen R should be remanded back to the custody to which he 
belonged, that he may be taken to 
U.P. if so desired to be produced 
before the court at the next hearing, and that if no fresh remand orders 
were received by midnight R was to be set at libe'rty at midnight. The 
same day a wireless message was received by the Superintendent Delhi 
Central Jail .from. the District_ Magistrate Lucknow, informing him that 
the City Magistrate Lucknow had extended R's remand up to September 
1, 1970. 
The following day a telegraphic message was received from 
the City Magistrate Lucknow informing the Superintendent that R was 
ordered to be remanded 
to judicial custody till 
September 10, 1970. 
Simultaneously this Court was informed by the District Magistrate that 
the remand ef R was extended up to September 10, 1970. R filed an-
other petition before this Court challenging the 
legality of the 
fresh. 
remand orders mainly on the ground that they were made behind his 
back. 
HELD : Per Hidayatullah, C.J., Bhargava. Mitter. 
Ray and Dua. 
JJ.-Even if it be desirable for the Magistrates to have the prisoner pro-
duced before them when they remit him to further custody, a magistrate· 
can act only as the circumstances permit. 
Indeed courts trying cases 
may find it necessary to order a remand in the absence of an accused 
e.g. when an accused is so seriously ill that the trial has to be adjourned 
and he cannot be brought to court and in such case an order made 
without production of accused in court will not be invalid. [ 151 HJ 
Prisoners who are under trial, are brought before this C.ourt on rule 
nisi and arc kept in custody of this Court. This is a transferred custody 
on behalf of the Magistrate. 
The Magistrate cannot recall the prisoner 
from this Court's custody by his order and he is only required to intimate 
to the jail authorities the prisoner, and this Court that the original remand 
has been extended while adjourning the case. 
This is sufficient ·com-
plianco with the requirements of the law in such special circumstances. 
To expect the Magistrate to do more under s. 344 of the Code .in such· 
148 
SUPREME COURT P.EPORTS 
[1971] 2 S.C.R. 
.circum~tances is to expect an impossibility from him and the law does 
,not contemplate aQ impossibility. [152 F] 
In tbe present case the prisoner did not want bail or seek to appear 
by counsel. 
He reliod only on the technical plea that ho was not pro-
duced before the Magistrate. 
There was no reason for this Court to 
order his release when he was held on proper remand by a ·Magistrate 
and there were no circumstances justifying his release. [151 G; 152 DJ 
Jn re Venkataraman, 49 Cr. L. J. 41, Anonymous case, 2 Weir 209 
and Ram Narain Singh v. State of Delhi .. [1953]· S.C.R. 652, referred to. 
Per Shela! and Vaidialingarn, JJ. (dissenting) : It stands to reason 
that an order of remand will have to be pas·sed in the presence of the 
accused. 
OtherwJse the position will be that a magistrate o'r court will 
A 
B 
be passing orders of remand mechanically 
without having 
heard tbe 
accused for a considerably long timt. 
When the accused is before the c 
Magistrate when the remand ord~r is passed he can make representation 
that no remand order should be passed and also oppose any move for a 
further remand. 
The fact that the person concerned does not desire to 
be released on bail or that he can make representations to the Mag
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.