IMPORTANT POINT
Non-citizens are also governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

JUDGMENT

Ramanujulu Naidu, J. - In this batch of Writ Petitions filed for issue of writs of habeas corpus, directing the respondents to produce before this Court, respectively, (1) Anwar Ismail, s/o Ismail, (2) Dawood Mohammed, s/o Siddiqui, (3) Dawood, s/o Yusuf, (4) Ishaq, s/o Omar, (5) Baktar Ahmad Mujawar Khan, s/o Mujawar Khan, (6) Kasim Mohammed s/o Shaik Mohammed, (7) Abdullah Usman, s/o Usman, (8) Mossa, s/o Ibrahim, and (9) Rafi, s/o Abdullah, presently undergoing detention as remanded prisoners in the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam, hereinafter referred to, for the sake of convenience, as "the detenus" and to set them at liberty, an important question of law as to the interpretation of Section 167(2) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequences that flow from contravention of or non-compliance with, the provisions of the said section arises for consideration.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the batch of writ petitions lie in a narrow compass and may briefly be stated. All the detenus are Helpers and Sailors employed in an Arab Dhow. It sailed towards the coastal sea in the State of Andhra Pradesh and it was intercepted at the coast near Narsapur by the officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras on 12-7-1990 and large quantities of smuggled silver bars were recovered from the Dhow. The detenus were arrested under section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 for contravention of the provisions of section 135 of the Customs Act and produced before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam on 15-7-1990 seeking their remand. The learned Magistrate remanded them to judicial custody till 30-7-1990 with a direction to produce the detenus before the Court of Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad for further remand. The detenus were thereupon lodged in the Central Prison, Visakhapatnam and produced before the Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad on 30-7-1990 for further remand. The learned Special Judge remanded them to judicial custody for a further period of 14 days, viz., upto 13-8-1990. On 13-81990, none of the detenus was produced before the learned Special Judge, but learned Special Judge extended their remand till 27-8-1990. Even on 27-8-1990, the detenus were not produced before the learned Special Judge, but the learned Special Judge extended the remand till 10-9-1990. On 10-9-1990 also the detenus were not produced before the Special Judge, but the learned Special Judge mechanically extended their remand till 24-9-1990. It appears that the jail authorities were seeking remand of the detenus from the Special, Judge on each of the occasions as a matter of routine, on the ground that there were no escorts available for production of the detenus before him and the Special Judge was mechanically extending remand of the detenus from time to time. A complaint, was however, filed against the detenus on 7-9-1990 before the learned Special Judge, for contravention of the provisions of Section 135 of the Customs Act and the detenus were being remanded from time to time by the learned Special Judge invoking the provisions of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Assailing the orders passed by the learned Special Judge remanding the detenus to judicial custody from 13-8-1990 to 24-9-1990 without being produced before him, the writ petitions were filed.

3. In all the writ petitions, the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Secretary to Government, General Administration Department and the Superintendent of Central Prison, Visakhapatnam were impleaded as respondents 1 and 2. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, whose officials arrested the detenus, impleaded itself as the 3rd respondent in all the writ petitions.

4. In the common counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent it is averred that the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India are guaranteed only to the citizens of India and the detenus being Pakistan na