YASHODA NANDAN, J. - This case has come up before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court because in his opinion there is a conflict between the decisions of two learned single Judges of this Court on the question of law arising for consideration.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to this reference are that Raghuraj Singh was wanted in connection with a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in Mohalla Akbarabad, Casba and Police Station Sehawan, District Budaun. The offence is alleged to have been committed on the 10th May, 1966. In August, 1966, Raghuraj Singh was arrested in district Bulandshahr and was produced before the Additional District Magistrate (J), Bulandshahr, under S.167(1), Criminal P.C. It appears that a report was made that the prosecution intended to put up Raghuraj Singh for identification at a test identification parade. The learned Additional District Magistrate (J), Bulandshahr passed an order under S.167(2), Criminal P.C. authorising the further detention of Raghuraj Singh. Raghuraj Singh then filed an application before the Additional District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, stating that he had an apprehension that if he was sent to Budaun he would be shown to the witnesses and he consequently prayed that his identification be conducted at Bulandshahr and he be transmitted to Budaun only thereafter. The Additional District Magistrate (J), Bulandshahr, considered the prayer of Raghuraj Singh as reasonable and ordered that his identification proceedings be held at Bulandshahr and that he should be sent to Budaun only thereafter. This order was communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Budaun, for taking necessary action for conducting the identification proceedings of Raghuraj Singh at Bulandshahr.

3. Instead of holding identification proceedings of Raghuraj Singh at Bulandshahr an application was made on behalf of the State before the Additional District Magistrate (J), Budaun, for an order of transfer of the accused to Budaun Jail. It was alleged in this application that the witnesses, who were to take part in the identification proceedings, were not prepared to go to Bulandshahr and the police had no power to compel them to do so. The Additional District Magistrate (J), Badaun, allowed the application and intimated to the Additional District Magistrate (J) Bulandshahr, that as the witnesses were reluctant to go to Bulandshahr the accused be transferred to Budaun Jail. However, the Additional District Magistrate (J) Bulandshahr, intimated to the Additional District Magistrate (J), Budaun, that since he had already passed an order for detention of the accused at Bulandshahr, he could not change it and consequently could not order the transfer of the accused to Budaun Jail.

4. The Superintendent, District Jail, Bulandshahr, had also been asked by the Additional District Magistrate (J) Budaun, through a warrant and order under S.3 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955, to forward the accused to his Court. But in view of an order to the contrary passed by the Additional District Magistrate (J), Bulandshahr, the Superintendent, District Jail, Bulandshahr expressed him inability to comply with the order of the Additional District Magistrate (J), Budaun.

5. Meanwhile Raghuraj Singh applied for bail to the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. It appears that the State Counsel made a statement that identification proceedings of Raghuraj Singh would be held within a month and consequently on the 6th February, 1967, the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, passed an order directing that the application for bail be put up after a month. On the 6th March, 1967, the bail application again came up for consideration before the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr and on that date he directed that the application be put up for hearing on the 15th March, 1967. But it was on the 16th March, 1967, that the application actually came up for hearing before the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr