SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(All) 289

D.N.JHA, K.S.VARMA, S.ZAHEER HASAN
Mnneshwar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Virendra Bhatia

Judgement Key Points
  • The word "shall" in the first proviso to section 309(2) CrPC is instructive and not mandatory, allowing Magistrates discretion to grant remand beyond 15 days without rendering the detention illegal. (!) (!) [25000645660005] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [25000645660010]
  • Non-compliance with the 15-day remand limit under section 309(2) CrPC proviso does not invalidate the Magistrate's order for longer remand if no prejudice is caused to the accused. [25000645660005] (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Section 209 CrPC is a special provision for commitment proceedings in sessions triable cases and is not controlled by the general provisions of section 309 CrPC regarding adjournments and remands. (!) [25000645660006] (!) (!) (!) [25000645660008]
  • Under the U.P. amendment to section 209 CrPC, the Magistrate may remand the accused to custody until commitment to the Sessions Court and thereafter during and until the conclusion of the trial, subject to bail provisions. [25000645660006] (!) (!) [25000645660008]
  • Proceedings under section 209 CrPC constitute an "inquiry" to which general provisions of section 309 CrPC apply, but section 209 empowers remand without the 15-day limit overriding it. (!) (!) [25000645660008]
  • Custody warrants with endorsements extending dates, initialed by the Magistrate, are sufficient for continued judicial custody during commitment proceedings without fresh specific remand orders each time. [25000645660001][25000645660013] (!) [25000645660002][25000645660003]
  • Physical production of the accused before the Magistrate is not mandatory for granting remand orders; remand can be ordered in the accused's absence if necessary. (!) [25000645660012]
  • Habeas corpus petitions challenging detention beyond 15 days were dismissed as the petitioners' custody was legal under sections 209 and 309 CrPC. [25000645660004][25000645660005][25000645660009][25000645660012]

JUDGMENT

D. N. Jha, J.

1. HABEAS Corpus Petition No. 2094 of 1983 filed by Muneshwar, was referred by a Division Bench as it involved legal questions. Identical questions were involved in HABEAS Corpus Petition No. 6584 of 1983 filed by Bhagauti and HABEAS Corpus Petition No. 6324 of 1983 filed by Nageshar. Consequently they were also connected and were directed to be disposed of by a larger Bench. This is how these three habeas corpus petitions are before this Court. All these petitions have been moved on the ground that there was no valid remand order in operation against the petitioners and, therefore, their detention was rendered illegal.

2. PETITIONER Muneshwar of Writ Petition No. 2094 of 1983 has been charged under section 302 IPC. The charge sheet was submitted against him on 14-9-1982. Since the commitment proceedings were pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, the Judicial Magistrate pissed the following order on 27-9-1982. The translation is an under :-

" Whereas a charge under section 302 IPC crime No. 254/82 criminal case No. 781/82 is pending against accused Muneshwar which is under enquiry by this Court, you are hereby required to keep the said accused Munesh
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Cases Referred (1)

Dalchand V. Municipal Corporation,Bhopal

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

App_Store_Badge Google_Play_Store

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon

Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

whatsapp-icon