Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
K. Anandan - Petitioner
Versus
Mr. K.Manoharan, Assistant, O/o. District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valparai, Coimbatore District - Respondents
Crl.O.P. No.29399 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
Decided on : 17.12.2014
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 207 – Indian Penal Code - Section 166 - Seeking to quash the said criminal proceedings - Not produce accused – Jurisdiction - As has been stated in the letter of the Additional Director General of Police out Criminal Courts in State 352 Courts have got videoconferencing facility already - Similarly, out of prisons in State 24 prisons including all Central Prisons and Special Prisons for Women, District Jails and Special Sub Jails have been provided with videoconferencing facility. The Government has also assured that the remaining 113 prisons will be provided with the videoconferencing facility soon. Having regard to the said statement made before this Court, I am of the view that wherever there is videoconferencing facility both in the Court as well as in the prison where the prisoner is lodged, there may not be any difficulty for the Magistrate concerned to extend the remand of the accused through videoconferencing as indicated herein above. So far as the jails where there is no such videoconferencing facility available, the jail authorities may escort the accused to the nearest centre where there is videoconferencing facility so that jurisdictional Magistrate could extend the remand through the said facility. Similarly, in the Courts, where there is no videoconferencing facility available, the Magistrate concerned may go to the nearest centre where there is videoconferencing facility from where he could extend the remand by videoconferencing facility – Held, It is also brought to my notice that earlier there was a circular issued by this Court in Chief Judicial Magistrates to nominate a single Judicial Magistrate to remand all the accused in case of exigencies irrespective of the fact that he does not have jurisdiction over the case. In view of the Division Bench judgment cited supra and the circular issued by this Court in all such circulars issued earlier shall stand cancelled. In other words, I hold that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has got no power to nominate a Magistrate, who has got no jurisdiction over the case to extend the remand of the accused under Section 167 or to remand accused under Section 309 Similarly, a Magistrate having jurisdiction over the case shall not remand the accused in a mechanical fashion without having the case records - In the case on hand, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore had authorized the learned Judicial Magistrate Coimbatore to remand all the accused lodged in Central Prison Coimbatore whose remand period expired though the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction over cases – This in my considered opinion is illegal – Similarly learned Judicial Magistrate Coimbatore had extended remand of accused without even having case records, but, by simply making an endorsement in remand warrants, extending the remand - This is illegal besides being a mechanical order - Deprivation of personal liberty cannot be made in such a fashion as it is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. However, in the instant case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Coimbatore and the learned Judicial Magistrate Coimbatore have acted according to the age old practice and therefore court inclined to condone their action - Petition is allowed
The petitioner is presently the Superintendent of Prisons in Central Prison, Coimbatore. One Mr. Chandran, S/o.Karuppannan, who was an accused in Crime No.35 of 2014 on the file of Valparai Police Station in Coimbatore District was remanded to judicial custody by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valparai on 20.06.2014 as an under trial prisoner. On the same day, he was lodged in the Central Prison, Coimbatore. His remand was thereafter periodically extended till 11.09.2014. On 11.09.2014, Mr.Chandran was duly produced before the learned Magistrate and after supplying the copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., when Mr. Chandran was questioned, he admitted the offence and the case was adjourned to 16.09.2014 for judgment. Mr. Chandran was, then, remanded to judicial custody till 16.09.2014. On 16.09.2014, however, the petitioner herein did not cause Mr. Chandran to be produced before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Valparai on the expiry of the remand period. There was no intimation from the petitioner to the Court, explaining the reason as to why he could not produce the accused.
2. On the same day, the learned Magistrate issued a show cause notice under letter No.6 of 2014 calling upon the petitioner herein to show cause on 24.09.2014 as to why action should not be taken against him for his failure to cause production of Mr. Chandran before the learned Magistrate on 16.09.2014. But the petitioner did not appear before the Magistrate on 24.09.2014, instead, he had sent a letter in Letter No.17130/R3/2014 dated 22.09.2014, wherein he had informed the learned Magistrate that for the period between 16.09.2014 and 30.09.2014, the remand of Mr. Chandran was extended by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore through video linkage as directed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. The learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the said explanation. No document pertaining to the extension of remand from 16.09.2014 was also produced before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner informed the learned Magistrate that in the warrant of remand, it had been recorded that the remand was extended. According to the learned Magistrate, this act of the petitioner, failing to cause production of Mr. Chandran before the Court on 16.09.2014 amounts to offence punishable under Section 166 I.P.C.
3. An Assistant by name K.Manoharan, the first respondent herein, who is working in the said Court filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the said private complaint and issued summons to the petitioner. On receipt of the summons, the petitioner has rushed to this Court with this petition, seeking to quash the said criminal proceedings. During the course of the present proceedings, the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Home Secretary was impleaded as second respondent.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and also perused the records carefully.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was no illegal detention of the accused Mr. Chandran beyond 16.09.2014 as his remand had been duly extended by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore. Since the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore had extended the remand of Mr. Chandran as per the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, this Court called for remarks from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore as to how he could authorise the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore to extend the remand of Mr. Chandran, when the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore had no jurisdiction over the case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, in his explanation dated 17.11.2014, has s
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
