Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: criminal procedure code section 267 in G. Archana vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 August, 2018Matching Fragments
3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition stating that there are 26 crimes as mentioned in the affidavit are registered against the husband of the petitioner; that W.P.No.36650 of 2016 is filed by one Shaik Meera, W/o.Shaik Darbar Basha, but not by the petitioner as stated in the affidavit; that the husband of the petitioner by name G.Ramanadha Reddy @ Vinjamuru Ramanadha Reddy surrendered before the JFCM Court, Badvel on 02.11.2017 in connection with four crimes registered against him and he was sent to judicial remand on 02.11.2017; that he was taken into custody on 10.11.2017 in Cr.No.61/2017 of B.Kodur Police Station; that during interrogation he confessed about his mutual involvement in the red sanders 4 ARR,J WPs_9715_13383_2018 smuggling cases along with his associates, 07 Red Sanders logs along with Maruthi Swift Car bearing Reg.No.AP 30P 3669 were seized on 12.11.2017 and later he was sent to judicial custody. By invoking the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act of 1986') the District Collector, Kadapa, issued orders vide C1/148/M/2015, dated 06.04.2015 against the husband of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.14680 of 2015 and ultimately, the husband of the petitioner was released from the jail on 17.10.2015. After release from the jail, the husband of the petitioner involved in number of criminal offences and looted rare, endemic and endangered precious national wealth i.e., Red Sanders for his wrongful gain; that the husband of the petitioner is responsible for destruction of valuable government property i.e., Red Sanders Wood; that the smuggled Red sanders wood are being illegally transported to other States like Tamilnadu, Delhi, Karnataka and from there to the foreign countries like Dubai, China etc., which is an anti national activity, against the interest of the nation and that he is key aide to the International Red Sanders Smuggler Sahul Bhai of Dubai, U.A.E; that on the proposals of Superintendent of Police, Y.S.R Kadapa District, the District Collector, YSR Kadapa 5 ARR,J WPs_9715_13383_2018 invoked the provisions of the Act of 1986 and issued proceedings No.C1/667/M/2017, dated 30.12.2017 against the husband of the petitioner and since then he is in Central Prison, Kadapa on the proposal of the Superintendent of Police, YSR Kadapa District (sponsoring authority) and the District Collector, YSR Kadapa District, (detailing authority), taking into consideration of registration of 26 crimes against him after his release of earlier detention order, again detained him under the Act of 1986; that since the husband of the petitioner involved in as many as 57 cases in total of Kadapa, Chittoor, Kurnool and Nellore District, PT warrants under Section 267 Cr.P.C were not executed; that as and when investigation is completed in respective cases and the presence of accused is required, police are producing the petitioner's husband in the respective courts through PT warrant and recently P.T warrant was executed against the detenu in Cr.No.51/2017 of Chakrayapet P.S on 26.03.2018; that the petitioner has not made out any specific case that the police has failed to file a petition under Section 267 Cr.P.C seeking the presence of the husband of the petitioner before the concerned jurisdictional Court and sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Home, while reiterating the averments in the counter 2008 (1) MWN (Cr.) 165 (DB).
8 ARR,J WPs_9715_13383_2018 affidavit, submits that the police may exercise the power under Section 267 Cr.P.C for production of accused, who were confined or detained whenever required for producing them before the Court and that the said provision does not provide any right to husbands of the petitioners to seeking their production before the Magistrate. She submits that as and when investigation is completed in respect of cases registered against them and the presence of accused is required, they are producing them in the respective Courts through PT warrant. She further submits that Section 267 of Cr.P.C cannot be pressed into service during the course of investigation of cases, which are registered against the husbands of the petitioners. She also submits that the order in WP No.36650 of 2016 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is general in nature and that no principle of law is laid down in the said judgment, as such, the same is judgment in personam but not judgment in rem and same is not binding on this Court, as precedent. She further submits that the respondents have taken steps for filing appeal against the said order. In support of her contentions, she relied on the judgments reported in Smt.Bharti Sachdeva v. State and others2, Mukesh and others v. State of U.P and others3 and in Harshad S.Mehta v. Central Bureau of Investigation4. 1996 CriLJ 2102 1998 (3) AWC 1960AII 1992 (24) DRJ 392 9 ARR,J WPs_9715_13383_2018
8. In this case, the only grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 4 to 17 in WP No.9715 of 2018 and W.P.No.13383 of 2018, have high handedly implicated her husband in several false criminal cases while he is judicial custody and even though they have knowledge about registering of cases against them, in which they are shown as an accused, they are not producing them by obtaining necessary P.T Warrants for their production before the Judicial Magistrate as envisaged in Section 267 of Cr.P.C. Before considering the said contention, it is relevant to extract Section 267 Cr.PC for better understanding, which reads as follows:
"27. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CBI v. Anupam, J. Kulkarni (supra), on a rule of construction propounded as under-
"The procedural law is meant to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate the same. It is an accepted rule that an interpretation which further the ends of justice should be preferred."
28. A bare reading of Sec. 2(h) Cr.P.C would show that "all the proceedings" conducted by a police officer for collecting evidence come under the definition of "investigation". The words "all the proceedings" referred in Sec.2(h) in our considered opinion would also include the expression used in the words "other proceeding under this Code" (Sec.267(1), "for the purpose of any proceedings against him" (Sec.267 (1)(a) and "for the purpose of such proceeding" (last portion of Sec.267 (1)). In order to further the ends of justice wider meaning is required to be given to the word "proceeding" used in Sec.267 Cr.P.C. Had the Legislature intended to give restrictive meaning to the words "other proceeding under the Code" (Sec.267(1), they would not have 2005 SCC Online Raj 317 12 ARR,J WPs_9715_13383_2018 used the expression "for the purpose of any proceedings against him" in Sec.267 (1)(a).