Relevancy of date for consideration.

Venkataswami, J.

This petition, under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, is for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, directing the respondent to produce the petitioner before this Court.

.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows:

.The respondent had filed a case against the petitioner and nine others, for offences under Secs.302 (6 counts), 120-B, 201 and 147 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, of which, after trial, three accused were awarded death sentence and five accused were given life imprisonment. This Court confirmed the death sentence, and also confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment in respect of three accused and acquitted two accused. The case against the petitioner and another person by name Selvaraj was split up from others and a new sessions case number, namely, S.C.No.187 of 1990, was given, and the same is pending on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. In addition to that, a case against the petitioner for escape from Central Prison, Madras, is pending before the XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. The petitioner appeared before the learned District and sessions Judge on 212. 1992 and the case was further adjourned to 21. 1993. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was taken for trial before the learned District and Sessions Judge on 21. 1993. But the presiding Officer was not available and the remand was extended till 22. 1993 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chengalpattu. According to the petitioner,this extension of remand by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu, is illegal, and consequently, the custody from 21. 1993 was illegal and, therefore, the petition for habeas corpus was filed.

.3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein, in paragraphs 4 and 5, it is stated as follows:

.“Regarding the averments contained in para.4 of the affidavit, I respectfully submit that the petitioner herein appeared before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu on 212. 1992 and the case was adjourned to 21. 1993. On 21. 1993, the petitioner appeared before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu, who extended the period of remand till 22. 1993 by virtue of the proceedings of the District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu dated 21. 1993. In the said proceedings, the learned Sessions Judge has delegated the powers in favour of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu to hear and dispose of urgent criminal applications inclusive of suspension of sentence and extension of remand of prisoners under Sec.10(3) of the Crl.P.C. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in turn had delegated the power conferred on him in favour of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chengalpattu in his proceedings Dis.No.406/ A/3, dated 21. 1993 although the order itself had been passed on 21. 1993. Pursuant to this delegation of power conferred upon him, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 had passed the order of remand in relation to the petitioner herein extending the same till 22. 1993. I respectfully submit that on 12. 1993 a requisition was filed by the respondent herein before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu pointing out that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu extending the remand of the petitioner till 22. 1993 may not be in conformity with the law. I most respectfully submit that the learned Sessions Judge thereupon was pleased to direct the prison authorities to cause production of the petitioner before him and for passing suitable orders. Accordingly, the petitioner was produced before the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu on 14.21993 when the petitioner was remanded to Judicial custody till 22. 1993.”

.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Vijaya Radha Mohan, contended that even as per the counter affidavit, the remand extended by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu cannot be sustained. The subsequent valid order passed