The detention of an accused person during trial is governed by Section 309 CrPC, which requires the court to pass specific orders remanding the accused to jail custody and to fix a date for the next hearing. The court must also ensure that the custody warrant contains a clear and unequivocal direction that the accused be kept in jail custody during the entire period of trial.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of habeas corpus to secure the release of the petitioner, who is under detention in Case Crime No. 217 of 1992, under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 of P. S, Jaidpur, district Bara Banki.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was, arrested on 8-7-1992 by the police of P. S. Jaidpur, district Bara Banki in connection with the abovenoted case and since then he is in jail. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet on 7-10-1992 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bara Banki who took cognizance of the offence on the same day. On 22-1-1993 the learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Court of 111 Additional Sessions Judge, Bara Banki and at present the trial is pending before that Court. It is alleged that after receiving the case by transfer the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not pass any remand order under Section 309 Cr PC, which undisputedly governs the remand of an accused during trial. According to the petitioner the proviso to Section 309 (2) requires that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time. The petitioner has submitted that in view of the above provision a remand cannot be granted for the entire period of trial but has to be given on each day of hearing on adjournment of the case. There is no order or direc tion from 25-1-1993 remanding the petitioner to jail custody and hence the detention of the petitioner with effect from 25-1-1993 is absolutely illegal. The petitioner has also alleged that his detention is illegal in view of the fact that the warrant of remand has not been issued in accordance with rules in the prescribed form. The petitioner has accordingly urged that he is in illegal detention and is entitled to be released unconditionally.

3. It may be mentioned that in the writ petition, it was also alleged that at the time of arrest the petitioner was not informed about the full parti culars of the offence as required under Section 50 Cr PC and Article 22 of the Constitution and that the provisions of Sections 50, 51, 52 and 57 of the abovementioned Act were not complied with and so his detention is illegal. But these grounds were not pressed at the time of hearing of the writ petition.

4. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 that on the basis of the FIR lodged in the aforesaid case the petitioner was brought to District Jail, Bara Banki on 8-7-1992. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against him before the Court of Session at Bara Banki. It is further stated that on 25-1-1993 the learned Sessions Judge while granting remand to the petitioner from 25-1-1993 to 3-2-1993 transferred that case to the Court of III Additionals Sessions Judge, Bara Banki. There is no Special Court in Bara Banki for conducting trial of cases under the NDPS Act and, hence, the learned Sessions Judge has full power to try the case him self or transfer it to any other competent Court. The court was received by transfer on 30-1-1993 in the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Bara banki and was directed to be put up on the date fixed, that is 3-2-1993. The remand under

Section 309, Cr PC had already been granted by the learned Sessions Judge on 30-1-1993 and hence, further remand was not at all neces sary. On 3-2-1993 the learned III Additional Sessions Judge remanded the petitioner under Section 309, Cr PC till 18-2-1993. It is further stated in Para 9 that the trial Court had not granted remand for the entire period of trial but is granting remand and fixing dates for examination of the witnesses on each date of hearing and there is no illegality in it. It is asserted in Para 10 that the learned III Additional Sessions Judge remanded the petitioner on each and every date on which he was produced in the Court. On the basis of these averments,