Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. BALASUBRAMANIAN
C. Natesan - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu and Others - Respondents
Crl. O.P. Nos. 19654 and 19880 and Crl. M.P. Nos. 9339 to 9341 of 1998
Decided On : 21 December 1998
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 267 - INTERPRETATION - PRISONER TRANSFER WARRANTS - JURISDICTION - PERSONAL LIBERTY - ARTICLE 21 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SECTION 482 - INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT - SECTION 269 - RIGHTS OF ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who was in judicial custody in Chennai, challenged the issuance of Prisoner Transfer (P.T.) warrants by courts outside the state seeking his transfer for investigation in crimes registered against him in those states. The petitioner contended that the issuance of P.T. warrants was illegal and violated his personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the issuance of P.T. warrants was legal and justified under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court interpreted the words "other proceeding under this Code", "any proceedings against him", and "such proceedings" occurring in Section 267 to include investigation proceedings. The court also held that the accused did not have an absolute right to avoid transfer pursuant to a P.T. warrant under Section 269 of the CrPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the issuance of P.T. warrants was legal and justified under Section 267 of the CrPC? 2. Whether the accused had an absolute right to avoid transfer pursuant to a P.T. warrant under Section 269 of the CrPC? 3. Whether the personal liberty of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the words "other proceeding under this Code", "any proceedings against him", and "such proceedings" occurring in Section 267 of the CrPC to include investigation proceedings. The court held that the general words "other proceedings under this Code" should be given a wider meaning than the preceding words "inquiry or trial" and that the words "for the purpose of any proceedings against him" and "for the purpose of such proceedings" occurring in Section 267(1)(a) and the last paragraph found in the sub-section itself lend support to this construction. 2. The court held that Section 269 of the CrPC only contemplates certain legal duties on the officer in charge of the prison and it does not create any corresponding right on the accused. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to rely upon Section 269 of the Code to avoid being transferred pursuant to the P.T. warrant. 3. The court held that the personal liberty of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution was not violated as the issuance of the P.T. warrants was legal and justified under Section 267 of the CrPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions challenging the issuance of P.T. warrants and held that the P.T. warrants were not the result of abuse of any process of Court and that they were issued by Courts having jurisdiction. The court also held that the orders issued under section 267 of the Code were in order subject to the arrest of the petitioner being shown.
R. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.
These two petitions are at the instance of the accused in Crime No. 1431 of 1998 on the file of the first respondent police station. In the first petition, there are three respondents namely the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch (R-1); State of Gujarat by Sub-Inspector of Police, Detective Crime Branch, Ahmedabad (R-2) and lastly the Superintendent of Central Prison, Chennai (R-3). In the second petition, there are six respondents. Besides the respondents in the first case, who are arrayed as Respondents 1, 2 and 6 respectively in this case, there are three other respondents namely State of Karnataka by Inspector of Police, Bangalore (R-3); State of Andhra Pradesh by Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Hyderabad (R-4) and State of Maharashtra by Inspector of Police, Crime Branch (R-5). The relief asked for in both the petitions is, identical and it is as follows:
"This Court may be pleased to direct the (third respondent in the first case and the sixth respondent in the second case) not to hand over custody of the petitioner on the basis of any P.T. warrants/arrest warrants etc. etc."
2. The persons, who are trying to take custody of the petitioner from the Central Prison, are the second respondent in the first petition and the Respondents 2 to 5 in the second petition. I heard Mr. C. A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned State Public Prosecutor for all the respondents, Mr. Barot, a senior counsel from the Supreme Court of India and as a party in person in his capacity as the informant in the crime stated to have been registered in Ahmedabad against the petitioner; Dr. Surat Singh, a senior counsel from New Delhi for and on behalf of the investors in common as well as Mr. P. Kannan Babu, learned counsel representing the investors in common.
3. It appears that there is a complaint on the file of the first respondent/police station in Madras, which stands registered as X Crime No. 1431 of 1998 for offences under Ss. 409 and 420 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. I am not going into the details of the allegations found in the First Information Report against the petitioner. Likewise, it is also made known to this Court that crimes have been registered against the petitioner in various parts of this country. The sum and substance of the accusation against the petitioner appears to be that he has not repaid various sums of money running to several crores of rupees, collected and accepted by him as Fixed Deposits and under other schemes. The petitioner was arrested in the crime at Madras and he appears to be in judicial custody now. Courts of competent jurisdiction in States, other than the State of Tamil Nadu, appear to have issued Prisoner Transfer warrants under section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the petitioner's transfer and production before the Court which issued the said Prisoner Transfer warrant, which hereinafter would be called as "P.T. warrant".
4. Mr. C. A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contended that the issuance of the P.T. Warrants in this case is not justified in law. The learned senior counsel, relying on Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contended that the Courts which have issued the P.T. warrants, have no authority in law to issue such warrants for production of the accused before the respective Courts. The learned senior counsel elaborated this point stating that for the issuance of P.T. warrant, there must be an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code during which if it appears to a Criminal Court 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 that it is necessary for ends of justice to examine such person as a witness, then only the Court would have the power to issue a P.T. warrant. The words "other proceeding under t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
