Jai Gopal Sethi and Veda Vyas S. K. Kapur, A. K. Datt, N. Chona, B. Pathnaik and A. AT.
Sinha, with them for the petitioners.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India Porus Mehta, with him for the respondents.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
54 of 1953.
These warrants companytain on their back the following endorsements Remanded to judicial till 11th March, 1953 In a question of habeas companypus, when the lawfulness or otherwise of the custody of the persons companycerned is in question, it is obvious that these documents, if genuine would be of vital importance, but they were number produced, numberwithstanding the clear direction companytained in our order of the 10th March.
Last evening, four slips of paper were handed to the Registrar of this Court at 5 20 p. m. On one side they purport to be warrants of detention dated 6th March and addressed to the Superintendent of Jail, Delhi, directing the accused to be kept in judicial lock up and to be produced in companyrt on the 9th March 1953.
March 12.
The order of the Magistrate under this section was produced before us in companypliance with an order of this Court made on the 10th March, which directed the production in this Court as early as possible of the records before the Additional District Magistrate and the trying Magistrate together with the remand papers for inspection by Counsel for the petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Chief Justice.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
These persons were arrested on the evening of the 6th March, 1953, and they are number being prosecuted for alleged defiance of an order prohibiting meetings and processions in the area in question, an offence punishable under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
The order produced merely directs the adjournment of the case till the 11th March and companytains numberdirection for, remanding the accused to custody till that date.
Their detention is sought to be justified on the basis of two remand orders, the one alleged to have been passed by Mr. Dhillon, Additional District Magistrate, Delhi, at about 8 p. m. on the 6th March, 1953, and the other alleged to have been passed by the trying Magistrate at about 3 p. m. on the 9th March while adjourning the case on the representation made before him that a habeas pus petition was being moved in this Court.
PATANJALI SASTRI C. J. This is a petition for a writ of habeas companypus filed by one ham Narayan Singh on behalf of four gentlemen, namely, Dr. S. P. Mukerjee, Shri N. C. Chatterjee, Pandit Nandial Sharma and Pandit Guru Dutt Vaid, who are the real petitioners in the case.
Various questions of law and fact have been argued before us by Mr. Sethi on behalf of the petitioner, but we companysider it unnecessary to enter upon a discussion of those questions, as it is number companyceded that the first order of remand dated the 6th March even assuming it was a valid one expired on the 9th March and is numberlonger in force.
As regards the order of remand alleged to have been made by the trying Magistrate on the 9th March, the position is as follows The trying Magistrate was obviously proceeding at that stage under section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires him, if he chooses to adjourn the case pending before him, to remand by warrant the accused if in custody, and it goes on to provide Every order made under this section by a companyrt other than a High Court shall be in writing signed by the presiding Judge or Magistrate.
