( 1 ) SHRI Jaisingh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S. K. Pavnekar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Pavnekar states that he has neither the case-diary nor any other paper. Shri Mukati, who appears for the intervenor-complainant, has filed certain affidavits alleging that the co-accused Raju had intimidated him. However, no report as such has been lodged.

( 2 ) BY order dated 6-5-88, record of the Committal Court was sent for, which has been received. The case has been committed to Sessions, vide order dated 22-3-88. One of the co-accused, Rajendra has been admitted to bail. Shri Jaisingh, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed certified copies of the order-sheet dated 25-2-1988 and Committal Court record is also available. It is shocking that the accused was not produced before the Magistrate for months together and on date after date and what is more painful is that the Magistrate very conveniently had been granting and extending the period of judicial custody without insisting for production of the accused accepting a rubber stamped endorsement to the effect that accused could not be produced for want of police-guard, without even questioning the jail authorities or the police about it. To say the least, it is a very sorry state of affairs.

( 3 ) THE warrants on record go to show that right from 10-11-1987 to 7-3-1988, the petitioner was not produced before the Magistrate, yet he continued to remand him to judicial custody on mere production of warrant in utter disregard of law.

( 4 ) THERE is not the slightest indication in the order-sheets to show that the learned Magistrate ever insisted for production of the accused and there is also no indication that when he was produced from jail on 7-3-1988, he was furnished with copies of the charge-sheet before passing the committal order. Order-sheet dated 22-2-1988 does not indicate that the learned Magistrate ever bothered to see that copies of challan papers were supplied to the petitioner, who was all along in judicial custody for a period of more than four months, that two without being produced before the Magistrate. Needless to add, that the Magistrate was duty bound to see that the accused was furnished with copies, of the challan papers. There is clear breach of the mandate of S. 207. Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner was indisputably not furnished with copies of the charge-sheet filed on 20-1-88 in the absence of the accused, who was not produced before the Magistrate for almost two months thereafter. Such filing of challan would not arrest the operation of the proviso to S. 167 (2), Cr. P. C. which would entitle the accused to bail. Without entering into this controversy, whether the challan was filed within 90 days of arrest, the fact remains that till passing of the committal order the accused was not supplied with copies of the challan. He was not produced for months together before the Magistrate, who as noted above, had been extending the period of his judicial custody on mere production of warrant. Order-sheets indicate that every order committing the petitioner to judicial custody was passed, the period of custody was extended by making an endorsement on the jail warrants and the endorsements read "produced on. . . . . " A warrant for further detention of an accused should be a warrant of commitment addressed to some Jailor or officer having authority to receive or keep the prisoner. Ordinarily a Magistrate is expected to write in the order sheet that the accused is remanded to judicial custody for a certain period. It is not a mere form. An omission to mention the same in the order-sheet may not amount to illegal detention, when there is authorisation on the warrant itself, but a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has observed that a remand by merely filling the column on the reverse of the warrant form already signed on the front side on an earlier date, can