Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(v) Court is bound to follow the directions given by High Court in Writ Petition No.2846 of 2021;

(vi) Even in the case of Susan Abraham Vs. State of Maharashtra3, the Court observed that Section 41A of Cr.P.C is applicable when arrest is effected under Section 267 of Cr.P.C..

19. The Special Judge (CBI) allowed the prayer for police custody. Prayer for arrest was rejected. Application Exhibit-3 preferred by petitioner was rejected. The observations leading to conclusions in 3 2010(112)-Bom.L.R.-552 14 of 30 21.WP.3293.2021.doc impugned order dated 14th August 2021 passed below remand application and application Exhibit-3 are as under :-

(c) Relying on decision in the case of State by Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, City Crime Branch, Trichy decided by Madras High Court, it was observed that CBI placed remand application claiming both relief at once, application for arrest as contemplated under Section 41 of Cr.P.C and police custody of accused. The option available with the Court, when the accused is produced before it pursuant to production warrant to consider police custody or pass appropriate orders. It does not contemplate arrest. The decision in the case of State by Inspector of Police, Trichy (supra) contemplates modes when accused is already in judicial custody in connection with different case, either formal arrest or even without effecting a formal arrest, the police officer is entitled to 15 of 30 21.WP.3293.2021.doc seek police custody or judicial custody. The dicta does not contemplate arrest of accused detained in jail by police, as contemplated under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. It is a formal arrest pursuant to Section 267 of Cr.P.C; when relief of production warrant is allowed by the Court;

11. In Harshad S.Mehta vs. CBI (supra), a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that words "other proceedings" occurring in Section 267 Cr.P.C. have to be construed according to the principle of ejusdem generis and cannot be said to include investigation and came to conclusion that the Court cannot order officer in charge of the jail to produce a person detained except to face a charge or such other proceeding or to be a witness before the Court and production warrant of such other person cannot be issued to assist the investigating agency. However, in State of Maharashtra vs. Yadav Kohachade (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court dealt with the relevant provisions of section 267 and came to conclusion that the Magistrate was competent to issue warrant of production of accused confined in prison for the purpose of considering the request of the investigating officer for police custody in another case. The learned Single Judge observed as follows in para 24 :-
"Proceedings" would mean and include an 27 of 30 21.WP.3293.2021.doc action or prosecution and sometimes as meaning a step in an action and, therefore, it includes all steps taken in furtherance of prosecution, i.e., arrest, remand, interrogation and investigation. The judicial Magistrate, First Class, 2nd Court, was, therefore, justified in passing an order under section 267 of the Criminal Procedure Code and issuing warrant as per Form No.36 of Second schedule addressed to the officer-in-charge of Central Prison, Nagpur, to produce before him the non- applicant accused for the purpose of proceedings, i.e., remand. The legislature has used the words "other proceedings and any proceedings under the Code" in section 267 of the Criminal Procedure Code and not judicial proceedings and, therefore, seeking production of the accused for remand under section 267 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be faulted. There can be no quarrel over the decision in B.S. Rawat's case (cited supra) relied upon by Mr. Manohar, as what the Court observed was that the order under section 267 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be passed to produce a person for the purpose of investigation before the agency which is engaged in the investigation; as in the said case, the warrant was sought or production of the accused before the Custom Officer for the purposes of investigation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Magistrate was not competent to issue such a warrant of production of the accused confined or detained in a prison, before him, for the purposes of considering the request of the Investigating Officer to order his detention is police custody."