S. S. Sandhawalia, C. I.,-

Whether the physical production of an accused before the Magistrate is inflexibly mandated 'for extending his remand to custody, and the failure to do so would vitiate the ORDER :-is the significant question necessitating this reference to the "Division Bench.

2. The facts relevant to the aforesaid issue may be noticed with relative brevity. The petitioner has preferred the present habeas corpus petition on the allegation 'that he was arrested on the charge of murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the 29th of April, 1985 and was remanded to jail custody by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, at Biharsharif Thereafter his remand was extended from time to time. The petitioner's grievance is that he was not physically produced before the Judicial Magistrate at Biharsharif on the 23rd December, 1985, 6th January, 20th of January 1986 3rd of February, 1986 and 4th of February, 1986, When ORDER :s for extending his remand in custody were passed by the Magistrate. Inter aila, it is the case that the production of the petitioner for the extension, of his remand was mandatory and this, having not been done, the ORDER