LexRAM NARAYAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF DELHI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1958 March 12 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1953) RAM NARAYAN SINGH v. THE s·rATE OF DELHI AND OTHERS. [PATANJALr SAs1·nr C. J., MrKHER.TEA, S. R. DAs, GHULAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] Criminal trial-Adjouriiment of case -No order remanding accused to custody - Legality of detention ·-Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, s. 344-Habeas corpus. In habeas corpus proceedings the Court is to have regard to the legality or otherwise of the detention at the time of the return and not with reference to the institution of the proceedings. Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires a Magis· trate, if he chooses to adjourn a case, " to remand by warrant the accused if in custody" and provides further that every order made under this section by a Court other than a High ,Court shall be in writing. Where a trying Niagistrate adjourned a case by an order in writing but there was nothing in writing on the record to show that he made an order remanding the accused to custody: Held, that the detention of the accused after the order of adjourn- ment was illegal. Those who feel called upon to deprive other persons of their personal liberty in the discharge of ovhat they conceive to be their duty, must strictly and scrupulously observe the forms and rules of the law. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 54 of 1953. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Jai Gopal Sethi and Veda Vy'.Ls (S. K. K'ip1ir, A. K. Dutt, A. N. Chana, R. Pathnaik and A. N. Sinha, with them) for the petitioners. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Porus A. Mehta, with him) for the respondents. 1953. March Ll. The J udgmeut of the Court was delivered by the Chief Justice. PATANJALI SASTRI c. J.-This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by one Ham Narayan Singh on behalf of four gentlemen, namely, Dr. S. P. Mukerjee, Shri N. C. Chatterjee, Pandit Nandlal Sharma and Pandit Guru Dutt Vaid, who are the r~al petitioners in the case. These persoIJ,s were • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 653 arre.sted on the evening of the· 6th March, 1953, and they are now being prosecuted for alleged defiance of an order prohibiting meetings and processions in the area in question, au offence punishable under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Their detention is sought to be justified ou the basis of two remand orders, the one alleged to have been passed by :\1 r. Dhillon, Additional District Magistrate, Delhi; at about 8 p. m. on the 6th March, 1953, aud the other alleged to have been passed by the t·ryiug Magistrnte at about 3 p. m. on the 9th March while adjourning the case on the re.presenta- tion made before him that a habeas corpu.i petition was being moved in this Court. Various questions of law and fact have been argued before us by Mr. Sethi on behalf of the petitioner, but we consider it unnecessary to enter upon a discussion of tho,e questions, as it is now conc'eded that the first order of remand d::ited the. 6th March even assuming it was a valid one expired on the 9th :\larch and is no longer in force. As regard; the order of remand alleged to have been made by the trying Magistrate on the 9th March, the position is as follows :-The trying Magistrate was obviously proceeding at that >tage nuder section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires him, if he chooses to adjourn the case pending before him, "to remand by warrant· the accused if in custody," and it goes on to provide: Every order made under this section by a court other than a High Court shall be in writing signed by the presiding Judge or Magistrate. The order of the ~Iagistrate under this section was produced before us in compliance with an order of this Court made on the 10th March, which directed the production in this Court as early as possible of the records before the Additional District Magistrate and the trying l\if.agistrate together with the remand papers for inspection by Counsel for the petitioner. The order produc"ed merely directs the adjournment of the case till the 11th March and coutains no direction for remanding the accused to custody till that date. Lasb ~5 1958 Riun. Narayan Singh v. The State of Delhi and Others. Patanjaii Sastri 0. J, Wb8 Ra11t Narayan Singh v. Th• State of Delhi and Othdrs. Patanjali Sastri G. J. 654 SUPREME COCRT REPOHTS (1953] evening, four slips oJ paper were' handed to. the Regis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.