Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CRWP 4596 of 2020 The short question that has arisen in this criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce and release the petitioner from illegal detention of the respondents, is as to the ambit and powers of the Court under provisions of Sections 267, 272 and 249 of the Cr.P.C.

Upon hearing Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Gautam Dutt, APP for U.T. Chandigarh for respondent No.1 and Dr. Sukant Gupta, Central Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

Mr. Sukant Gupta and Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocates for respondents have controverted the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner by raising the plea that since production warrants have been issued by the Court in Mumbai in the second case, therefore, the respondents did not have any other option but to ensure that the petitioner is kept in custody till there is due transit of the accused to the Court in Mumbai.

Appreciating the submissions of the two sides, in the light of the records. Under Section 3 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts Act 1955 (in short the Prisoners Act) empowers the Court to require appearance of persons to give evidence or answer a charge. Sub-Section 3 of Section 3 of the Prisoners Act in its application to the State of Punjab, Haryana 4 of 9 and Chandigarh ensures that no order made under Section 3 by a Criminal Court, which is inferior to the Court of Magistrate of st the 1 Class so being admitted unless it is counter signed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom that Court is subordinate or out of the local limits of order jurisdiction of that Court is situated. To the specific query of this Court none for the respondents could convince this Court that the production warrants so issued qualifies this obligation or not and what is apparent to the naked eyes from the documents placed on the records, the same have been issued purely under the signatures of Metropolitan Magistrate Girgaon Mumbai. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Prisoners Act, the respondents were under no obligation to make compliance of these warrants, when the same did not satisfy the mandatory pre-requisite of the statute. It is fairly conceded on behalf of the respondents that till date no arrest warrants have been received qua the petitioner, who is accused in the second case by the authorities at Chandigarh. What transpires is that the authorities have failed to understand the very meaning of production warrants. A production warrant issued under Section 267 Cr.P.C. does not constitute a detention order authorizing detention of a person in prison. In akin situation before the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Nabbu Vs. State of 5 of 9 U.P. and others 2006 CriLJ 2260 similar situation as in this case, had arisen. The date for which, the accused was required to be produced in the second case in a Court at Mumbai had expired and, therefore, it is another distressing feature for the respondents, thus, necessitating this Court to observe that the authorities were not supposed to oblige and keep the petitioner behind the bars on the basis of lapsed production warrants which provision by way of 268(1) Cr.P.C. ensures such warrants cease to hold good.