A REMAND ORDER IS VALID IF IT CLEARLY INDICATES THE INTENTION TO REMAND THE ACCUSED TO JUDICIAL CUSTODY, EVEN IF IT IS NOT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM OR DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION THE NAMES OF THE ACCUSED.

1. - Ahmed S/o Sitab, Chander S/o Chhotey Khan, Sitab S/o Chhotey Khan, Shiraf S/o Sitab have filed this bail application. This application came up before me and after hearing the parties I have passed order dated October 29, 1979. In pursuance of this order the Jail record was summoned. This record shows that the order of remand to Jail in the prescribed form under Section 344 Criminal Procedure Code was sent on May 16", 1979 under the signature of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kishangarh Bas (Alwar) for remanding the accused till further orders and to cause him to produce before this Court on May 30, 1979 A separate remand form has been used for each of the accused. Thereafter it appears that on September, 1979 in pursuance of the commitment order, an order was passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate that the accused should be produced before the District and Sessions Judge Alwar on 9-10-1979, Later on District & Sessions Judge by order dated October 9, 1979 sent the accused to jail for being produced on October 29, 1979. On October 29, 1979 again according to the endorsement the accused were sent for being produced from Jail, on November 27, 1979. The endorsements of seal are contained only on the annexed paper to the order of remand in relation to the accused Saraf and so far as the other papers are concerned attached to the other orders of remand forms, there is no such seal of endorsement and there is no endorsement for 9.10.1979 for the other accused. However, Mr. Garg Public Prosecutor has produced today the certified copy dated 29-10-79 which is as under:

"U;k;ky; & ls'ku tt vyoj] ls'ku dsl ua0 108@79 ljdkj cuke ljkZQ vkfn vUMj lsD'ku 02 vkbZ0 ih0lh0ih0ih0 gkftj gSA eqyfteku ls'kc jks'ku bZ'kkd] jlwy bZy;kl cjtekur gkftj gSA og ;knnk'r is'k gqbZA vly "kNk;yh rych ij gkbZdksVZ xbZ gqbZ gS vc ogkWa ls vkus dh izrh{kk ckdh eqyfteku xsj fgjklr mifLFkr gSA lkZ;kdk okfil vkus dh izrh{kk es rkjh[k 27&11&70 dks is'k gksA eqyfteku tks tsy esa gS mudk U;kf;d fgjklr es fjekUM eUtwj fd;k tkdj mudks iqu% U;kf;d fgjklr es Hkstk tkrk gSA

29&10&79A b0iz0 flga ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k

vyoj (jktLFkku)"
In the above there is no specific order of remanding the accused to custody who are in Jail and the case was adjourned to November 27, 1979.

2. Dr. Tiwari learned Counsel for the accused-applicants submits that order sheet of the court file cannot be treated as a warrant for remand as contemplated by Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, warrant means written authorisation to the Jailor to receive accused in custody He relies upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court passed in Sayeed Ahmed v. State AIR 1978 Cri. L. J. 541 .

3. Dr. Tiwari has also invited my attention to the judgment of this Court passed in Chhitar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 233/1977) decided on April 24, 1979 .

4. Mr. Garg, Public Prosecutor has invited my attention to the signed endorsement attached to the warrant of remand, which is as under:

"vfHk;qDr dk U;kf;d fgjklr es fjekUM eatwj fd;k tkrk gS o mDr vfHk;qDr dks fnukad 29-10-79 dks izLrqr fd;k tkosA fnukad 9&10&1979 g0(vkB) fnukad 9&10&79A ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] vyoj 2 & eqy dk U;kf;d fgjklr es fjekUM eatwj fd;k x;k o vfHk;qDr dks fnukad 27&11&79 dks izLrqr fd;k tkosA fnukad 29&10&79

g0 iz0 flag

ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] vyojA"
These two endorsements dated 9-10-79 and 29-10-79 are contained on paper which has been filed along with the order of remand of accused Saraf, dated May 16, 1979

5. It is true that there is no separate order of remand written on the analogous papers which are attached to the warrant of other accused. It is also true that in the rubber seals which have been put on 9-10 79 and 29-10-79 word used 'the accused' in singular and above it on the seal of 20-10-79 there is an endorsement by hand which only says in Hindi, which is short form of an accused. There is no doubt that this is all perfunctory