S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The larger questions of criminal jurisprudence which loom for adjudication in these connected writ jurisdiction cases may well be precisely formulated in the terms following :

(i) Whether a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order of remand unless an application or a request to that effect is made by the Police or the prosecution ?

(ii) Whether the physical production of the accused before the Magistrate for the purpose of remand is so mandatory that a failure to do so would vitiate the same even if the circumstances for non-production were beyond the control of the prosecution and the Police ?

(iii) Whether a defect or illegality in the order of a remand of an accused person is incurable and he can claim a writ of habeas corpus despite the fact that on the date of hearing he is in custody under a valid order of remand ?

(iv) Whether the judicial orders of a Criminal Court (stricto sensu) under the Code of Criminal Procedure, are amenable to quashing by a writ of certiorari ?

2. The facts giving rise to the pristinely legal questions aforesaid are not in serious dispute and lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner was arrested at dawn on the 9th of January, 1986 in connection with Town Police Station Case No. 4 of 1986 registered under Ss.25(1)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act. Subsequently he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, on the 11th of January, 1986, and his case is that this was beyond the mandated period of twentyfour hours. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that he be produced before Shri J.K. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, for recording his statement under S.164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The petitioner was, however, not produced before the said Magistrate on that date and instead was produced before him on the 13th of January, 1986. He did not make any statement before the said Magistrate and was consequently directed to be produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate which was done on the same date and he remanded him to jail custody till the 25th of January, 1986. He was again produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the date aforesaid, who remanded him further till the 6th of February, 1986 awaiting the receipt of the final form, and it is the petitioners case that no application or prayer was made by the Police or prosecution for any further remand. On the 1st of February, 1986, a petition for bail was moved on behalf of the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that his remand was illegal. This application was heard by the learned Magistrate on the 4th of February, 1986 and he rejected the same on the same day - vide detailed order, Annexure-4. Thereafter the petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge for bail on the same ground. This was ultimately heard by Shri J. P. Yadav, Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga. By his detailed order (Annexure-5) dated the 6th of February, 1986, he held that the remand of the petitioner could not be said to be illegal and rejected the bail application.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Annexure-4) and of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, (Annexure-5) the present petition was preferred. At the motion stage itself reliance was sought to be placed on 1981 BBCJ (HC) 171 : (1980 Cri LJ NOC 170), Baban Lal Yadav V/s. State of Bihar, the correctness of which was challenged on behalf of the State and consequently the application was admitted for hearing by a Division Bench. Before the Division Bench learned counsel for the petitioner raised the questions formulated at the outset and noticing the significance thereof the matter has been referred for hearing by the Full Bench and that is how it is before us now.

4. For the sake of clarity the questions formulated at the outset may be dealt with separately. Taking them up seriatim, under question (i) the main thrust of Mr. Sha