The production of the accused before the Magistrate is not a necessary requirement for the purpose of his remand under Section 344(1-A), Criminal P.C. at the instance of the police, though as a rule of caution it is highly desirable that the accused should be personally produced before the Magistrate so that he may, if he so chooses, make a representation against his remand and for his release on bail.

G. S. Lal, J. (for himself and on behalf of K. C. Puri, J.) :- This is a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has come before the Full bench on a reference by a Division Bench of which one of us was a member. We have already allowed the petition by our order dated 22-5-1971, stating that our reasons would however be given later on. We proceed to give our reasons now.

2. The facts of the case are briefly these. The petitioner Urooj Abbas is an under-trial in a case under Section 379 and 411, I.P.C. He is detained in jail. One of the grounds taken by him in support of the case that his detention in jail is illegal is that on neither of the dates 4-1-1971 and 13-1-1971 fixed in the case for hearing he was called in the Court room before the Magistrate and there was therefore no legal remand of himself to jail custody. The second ground is that the learned Magistrate did not record any order remanding the petitioner to jail custody. The third ground is that no proper warrant remanding him to jail custody was prepared.

3. It is not in controversy that in the case of the petitioner the learned Magistrate had to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 344 (1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section reads :-

"(1-A) If, from the absence of a witness, or any other reasonable cause, it becomes necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, the Court may, if it thinks fit, by order in writing, stating the reasons therefor, from time to time, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody :

Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time :

Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing."

The orders of the trial Magistrate which are to be found on the record on the two dates on which legal remand orders are said not to have been made are to be found in the proceedings sheet in the following words :

"4-1-1971.

Case called out. The accused is in jail in this case the P.P. has given his report that this is a case of Section 392/397, I.P.C. and so it may be taken up as an enquiry case.

Order.

Put up up on 13-1-1971 for the disposal of the application of A.P.P.

Sd/-

Illegible, J.O. 4-1-1971."

"13-1-1971.

Case called out. The A.P.P. has moved an application requesting that this case may be taken up as enquiry case. Hence the case is adjourned to 21-1-1971 for further orders.

Order.

Fix 2-1-1971 (sic) for further orders.

Sd/-

Illegible, J.O. 13-1-1971."

4. It is agreed that the accused was not taken before the Magistrate when the two orders quoted above were passed. It is also apparent that while the reason for adjourning the case was record in writing each of the two dates there was not records on either of these dates on the proceedings sheet or elsewhere an order directing the petitioner to be remanded to jail custody again or giving the reasons for such further remand to jail custody. According to Sri C. H. Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, the production of the accused before the Magistrate before he could be remanded to jail custody was absolutely necessary. Learned counsel's reference to the provisions of Section 167, Criminal P.C. and Art. 22 (2) of the Constitution of India is irrelevant because the stage of compliance with the sa