Judgement Key Points

Honble S.K. SHARMA, J.–Following question has been referred to us for adjudication:-

``Whether production warrant requiring attendance of a prisoner lodged in judicial custody in one case can be issued under Sec. 267 CrPC for the purpose of investigation in another case and whether the expression ``other proceeding and ``for the purpose of any proceedings used in Sec. 267(1) and 267 (1)(a) respectively would include ``investigation as defined in Sec. 2(h) CrPC ?

(2). The facts giving rise to this question may briefly be stated. One Yogesh Vijay submitted a written report on October 9, 2000 at the police Station Shipra Path Jaipur with the averments that 4-5 persons forcibly entered his house around 8 P.M., tied his hands and legs and made him to sit in a room. The miscreants had a `Katta (country made gun) and knives. They demanded ornaments and cash and threatened him for dire consequences if their demand was not fulfilled. They collected all the valuables and fled away. After they had left, the informant somehow manage to untie himself. On coming out of the house he found his car RJ- 14-1C-6516 and Scooter RJ-14-11M-7263 missing. The police station Shipra Path, on the basis of this information chalked out regular FIR and investigation commenced. In the course of investigation it was revealed that accused Santosh Yadav was involved in the matter. Santosh Yadav was already arrested by the Police Station Agra (U.P.) on November 11, 2000 in connection with the offence under Sec. 4/25 Arms Act in FIR No. 504/2000 and had been remanded to judicial custody by Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra City (U.P.). While he was in police custody, car RJ-14-1C-6516 belonging to informant Yogesh Vijay got recovered at his instance. When the fact came to the knowledge of the SHO PS Shipa Path Jaipur, he made request to the CJM Agra City for handing over the custody of accused Santosh Yadav. The CJM Agra City then directed that the production warrant on Proforma `B should be got issued from the competent authority. The SHO Shipra Path Jaipur thereafter moved application to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 8 Jaipur City for passing appropriate order in the matter. Learned Magistrate rejected the application vide order dated November 14, 2000 holding that as per the provisions of Sec. 267 (1) Cr.PC he did not have jurisdiction to issue production warrant of the accused. In doing so the learned Magistrate relied on Bharti Sachdeva vs. State of Rajasthan (1), for the proposition that words ``any proceedings as mentioned in Sec. 267(1) CrPC do not include investigation of the offence by the police as they are not the proceedings before the Court, therefore, issuance of production warrant was not justified. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 8 Jaipur City, the State of Rajasthan preferred revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur City. Learned Sessions Judge while concurring with the view expressed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the revision petition vide order dated May 21, 2001. The State of Rajasthan then approached the High Court under Sec. 482 Cr.PC seeking quashing of the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. Learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated November, 27, 2001 was of the view that issue involve in the matter required reconsideration by a Larger Bench. That is how the matter has been placed before us.

(3). Looking to the nature of controversy we propose to consider the issue elaborately.

(4). Section 267(1) CrPC reads as under:-

``267. Power to require attendance of prisoners.-(1) Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court-

(a) that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him, or

(b) that it is n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document