Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Following question has been referred to us for adjudication:-

"Whether production warrant requiring attendance of a prisoner lodged in judicial custody in one case can be issued under Section 267 CrPC for the purpose of investigation in another case and whether the expression "other proceeding" and "for the purpose of any proceedings" used in Section 267 and 267(1)(a) respectively would include "investigation" as defined in Section 2(h) CrPC ?

2. The facts giving rise to this question may briefly be stated. One Yogesh Vijay submitted a written report on October 9, 2000 at the police Station Shipra Path Jaipur with the averments that 4-5 persons forcibly entered his house around 8 P.M., tied his hands and legs and made him to sit in a room. The miscreants had a 'Katta' (country made gun) and knives. They demanded ornaments and cash and threatened him for dire consequences if their demand was not fulfilled. They collected all the valuables and fled away. After they had left, the informant somehow manage to untie himself. On coming out of the house he found his car RJ- 14-1C-6516 and Scooter RJ-14-11M-7263 missing. The police station Shipra Path, on the basis of this information chalked out regular FIR and investigation commenced. In the course of investigation it was revealed that accused Santosh Yadav was involved in the matter. Santosh Yadav was already arrested by the Police Station Agra (U.P.) on November 11,2000 in connection with the offence under Section 4/25 Arms Act in FIR No. 504/2000 and had been remanded to judicial custody by Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra City (U.P.). While he was in police custody, car RJ-14-1 C-6516 belonging to informant Yogesh Vijay got recovered at his instance. When the fact came to the knowledge of the SHO PS Shipa Path Jaipur, he made request to the CJM Agra City for handing over the custody of accused Santosh Yadav. The CJM Agra City then directed that the production warrant on Proforma 'B' should be got issued from the competent authority. The SHO Shipra Path Jaipur thereafter moved application to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 8 Jaipur City for passing appropriate order in the matter. Learned Magistrate rejected the application vide order dated November 14, 2000 holding that as per the provisions of Section 267(1) Cr.PC he did not have jurisdiction to issue production warrant of the accused. In doing so the learned Magistrate relied on Bharti Sachdeva v. State of Rajasthan 1996 CrLJ 2102, for the proposition that words "any proceedings" as mentioned in Section 267(1) CrPC do not include investigation of the offence by the police as they are not the proceedings before the Court, therefore, issuance of production warrant was not justified. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 8 Jaipur City, the State of Rajasthan preferred revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur City. Learned Sessions Judge while concurring with the view expressed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the revision petition vide order dated May 21, 2001. The State of Rajasthan then approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashing of the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. Learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated November, 27, 2001 was of the view that issue involve in the matter required reconsideration by a Larger Bench. That is how the matter has been placed before us.

5. A look at Section 267(1) demonstrates that a Criminal Court in the course of an inquiry, trial or another proceeding can direct the production of an accused confined or detained in another prison for the purpose of answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him. He can also be called to appear as a witness for the purpose of giving evidence.

6. Section 267 CrPC corresponds to Section 3 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 (for short '1955 Act') and Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of 1955 Act has not been included in Section 267 CrPC as it refers exclusively to Civil Court. Sub-section (1) of Section 267 CrPC combines Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the 1955 Act and makes the provision in a redrafted form. The said Sub-sections (1) & (2) read thus;

With the advent of CrPC 1973, 1955 Act stood repealed. As already noticed similar provisions had been introduced by enacting Section 267 CrPC.

7. We now proceed to analyse as to what is the ambit and scope of the word "proceeding" used in Section 267 CrPC?

8. A close look at Section 267 demonstrates that word "proceeding" has been used at three places:-

(i) "other proceeding under this code" 1267(1)]

(ii) "for the purpose of any proceeding against him" [267 (1)(a)] (iii) for the purpose of such proceeding [last portion of Section 267 (1)]

24. Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Bobby @ Premveer v. State of U.P. (supra), declared the ratio indicated in Bharati Sachdeva (supra), as obiter dicta.

25. Having thus noted the definitions of 'other proceedings' investigation and the relevant case law, a need arises to consider the argument that may be advanced in support of ratio indicated in Harshad S. Mehta (supra), and Bharti Sachdeva (supra). It may be argued that if Legislature had thought to include "investigation" as one of the contingencies where Section 267 CrPC was to be attracted, it may well have used the expression "investigation' and nothing prevented Legislature from doing so. There are several other sections in CrPC such as Sections 210 and 428 where in the Legislature has used all the three expressions i.e. investigation, inquiry and trial and, therefore, only one inference may be drawn that "investigation" was not to be included under Section 267 CrPC and, therefore, specifically the words inquiry and trial alone have been used. The expression "other proceeding under this code" after the words "inquiry and trial" deliberately exclude the word "investigation"