Back
1994 Supreme(All) 585
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Srinath Sahay, V.P.Goel
VIRENDRA SINGH
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT DISTT JAIL FAIZABAD
Decided On : 12 September 1994
The word 'vicharan' used in Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers to the stage of enquiry and not trial.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 50(1) - ARTICLE 22(1) - ARREST - DISCLOSURE OF GROUNDS OF ARREST - SUFFICIENCY OF ENTRY IN GENERAL DIARY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN VICHARAN AND TRIAL - VALIDITY OF REMAND ORDER DIRECTING DETENTION DURING TRIAL - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Virendra Singh, was arrested on 21-7-1994 in connection with a murder case. He challenged his detention on the grounds that (1) he was not informed of the grounds of arrest and particulars of the offence at the time of arrest, (2) the remand order granted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was illegal as it directed detention during and until the conclusion of trial, and (3) the custody warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was also illegal as it directed detention during and until the conclusion of trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that (1) the entry in the General Diary stating that the grounds of arrest were disclosed to the petitioner was sufficient compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) and Section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (2) the remand order directing detention during and until the conclusion of trial was illegal as the word 'vicharan' used in Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers to the stage of enquiry and not trial, and (3) the custody warrant directing detention during and until the conclusion of trial was valid as it also contained a direction to produce the accused on the dates endorsed on the warrant.
Issues: 1. Whether the entry in the General Diary stating that the grounds of arrest were disclosed to the petitioner was sufficient compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) and Section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 2. Whether the remand order directing detention during and until the conclusion of trial was illegal? 3. Whether the custody warrant directing detention during and until the conclusion of trial was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the entry in the General Diary stating that the grounds of arrest were disclosed to the petitioner was sufficient compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) and Section 50(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relying on the decision in Ram Chandra Srivastava v. Senior Superintendent of Police. The court distinguished the case of Vikram v. State of U.P. on the ground that it was distinguishable on facts. 2. The court held that the remand order directing detention during and until the conclusion of trial was illegal as the word 'vicharan' used in Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers to the stage of enquiry and not trial. 3. The court held that the custody warrant directing detention during and until the conclusion of trial was valid as it also contained a direction to produce the accused on the dates endorsed on the warrant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the arrest and detention of the petitioner was not shown to be illegal on the date of return.
This is a petition for issuing a writ of habeas corpus for the release of the petitioner, who is under detention in connection with Case Crime No. 566 of 1994 under Section 302/307, I. P. C. of P. S. Kotwali Nagar, district Faizabad.
2. The facts of the case which are not in dispute are that on 28-6-1994 at 8. 30 a. m. a report was lodged by Mahatam Yadav against the petitioner Virendra Singh and one Dinai at P. S. Kotwali Nagar, Faizabad in connection with the murder of Ram Sewak Singh. The aforesaid case crime was regis tered by the police on the basis of the said report against the persons named in the report, namely, petitioner and Dinai. On 21-7-1994 the petitioner was arrested at his residence in district Azamgarh by Sri Surya Bali Singh, Ins-pector-Incharge alongwith S. I. Kulbhushan Tewari and S. I. Indra Prakash Singh and certain others. The arrest was made at 4. 00 a. m. The petitioner was brought by the police party to P. S. Kotwali Nagar on the same day at 4. 00 p. m. and was thereafter lodged in District Jail, Faizabad after obtaining the order of the Magistrate and since then the petitioner is under detention in jail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner was detained at P. S. Kotwali Nagar, Faizabad on 21-7-1994 from 4. 00p. m. to 4. 50 p. m. and was thereafter produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for remand. The necessity for taking the petitioner to the Chief Judicial Magistrate from the Kotwali in the manner suggested by the petitioner was that by that time the court was closed after court hours. According to the petitioner, the Chief Judicial Magistrate refused to grant any remand and hence the petitioner was thereafter taken to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for the purposes of remand. However, the petitioner was not produced before him and without completing the formalities of law, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate granted remand from 21 -7-94 to 3-8-94. These facts are denied by the respondents and it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was actually produced before the learned Addi tional Chief Judicial Magistrate and remand was granted by him after perusing the relevant papers and satisfying himself that remand was necessary.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the remand order, a copy of which has been filed as Annexurc-1 to the writ petition. It shows that under the signatures of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the date if mentioned as 21-7-91. Learned counsel has argued on the be his of this entry in the remand order that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magis trate did not apply his mind and did not consider the relevant papers and passed the remand order in a mechanical way. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that figure 91 below the signatures of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is merely a slip of pen and no adverse inference can be drawn on the basis of that entry. We see no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the counter-affidavit regarding the production of the petitioner and neces sary papers before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, who granted remand for the period from 21-7-94 to 3-8-94. In our opinion, the allegation made by the petitioner cannot hold water in the face of the aver ments made in the counter affidavit. The first contention of the petitioner has no force.
5. The second contention of the petitioner is that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the accused persons and the enquiry is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Further remand has been granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and in that connection the custody warrant has also been issued by him. A copy of the custody warrant has been filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit sworn by Sri Chunni Lal, District Jailor, Faizabad. In the said custody warrant it is mentioned that the accused is remanded to judicial custody and shall be detained
