The Magistrate's authority to remand an accused to custody for the duration of the sessions trial under Section 209(b) of the CrPC becomes effective as soon as the order is made, and there is no hiatus between the making of the order and its becoming effective.

( 1 ) BY these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioners, namely, Abdul Zabbar (Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12534 of 1983) Abdul Gaffar, Abdul Rab alias Pappu. Abdul Wahab, Ilyas and Aas Mohammad (Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 12737 of 1983) question the validity of their detention in the district Jail, Meerut and pray that the Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut should be directed to set them at liberty forthwith.

( 2 ) ALL the six petitioners are accused in crime case No. J 77/63 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 Indian Penal Code pertaining to Police Station Lisari Gate, Meerut. After completing the investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet against them on 5th of August, 193 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate has, vide his order dated 1st September, 1983 committed their case to the Court of Session. On the same day the Sessions Judge registered the case as S. T. No. 430 of 1953 and the petitioners are at present being detained in the District Jail, Meerut in connection with the said trial.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not, while committing their case to Sessions on 1st Sept. , 1983 pass any order under Section 209 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, remanding them to custody during and until the conclusion of the trial. He merely issued custody warrants addressed to the Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut authorising him to detain the petitioners up to 15th Sept. , 1983 and to, on that date, produce them before the Court of Session. However, the petitioners were, as required by the custody warrants, not produced before the Sessions Court on 14th September, 1983. Even though neither the Chief Judicial Magistrate, nor the Sessions Judge, had passed orders authorising petitioners detention in the District Jail, Meerut after 14th September 1983 the petitioners were kept in illegal confinement and were produced in Sessions Court only on 22nd October 1983 when the Sessions Judge framed charges against the petitioners. After framing the charges, the Sessions Judge, without passing any orders under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the order-sheet, prepared custody warrants directing the Superintendent, District Jail to take the petitioners into custody and to produce them before the Court on 30th of November 1983. The Petitioners claim that as between 14th September 1983 and 22nd October, 1963 the Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut was not authorised to keep them under detention and their detention during that period was absolutely illegal. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge was, on 22nd of October, 1983 neither competent to pass any orders under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remanding the Petitioners to jail custody nor did he pass any such order on the order-sheet. The custody warrants prepared by the Sessions Judge on 22nd of October 1983 were illegal and the detention of the Petitioners continued to be without authority of law.

( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit sworn on 24th of November 1983 the respondents refuted the stand taken by the Petitioners and contended that while committing the case of the Petitioners to Sessions on 1st of September, 1983, the Chief Judicial Magistrate did pass an order under Section 209 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, authorising the Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut, to detain the Petitioners during and until conclusion of the Sessions Trial. The Magistrate also prepared formal custody warrants which apart from authorising the Superintendent District Jail to keep the petitioners under detention, required him to produce them before the Court of Session on 14th of September, 1983.

( 5 ) THUS, the Superintendent, District Jail had been vested with the authority to detain the Petitioners during and until conclusion of the session trial. Since the session trial against the Petitioners is still pending, it cannot be said that they are being detained in the