On 30th March, 1970 a report was filed by the Investigating Officer describing it as a preliminary charge sheet in which it was stated that the investigation in the case had number been companypleted and several accused persons had yet to be traced.
On that very day the prosecution filed a second preliminary charge sheet in which the petitioner and Dr. C. Ramadass were shown as accused number.
At the time of remand he was informed by the Magistrate that he was accused of offenses under ss.
1, from time to time on 3rd and 17th September and 1st October, 1970.
3 of 1970 known as Parvatipuram Naxalite Conspiracy Case .
The petitioner challenges the remand orders from the 1st August onwards and claims that his detention is illegal and that he is entitled to be set at liberty.
On behalf of the other respondents a lengthy affidavit has been sworn by S. Veeranarayanareddi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
32 of the Constitution of India for writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
The prosecution, however, sought extension of the period of remand When the petitioner objected to further remand a second preliminary charge sheet was presented to the companyrt on that very day specifically including the petitioners name.
His remand was thereupon extended upto 6th August and thereafter upto 20th August.
He was number shown any warrant at the time of his arrest.
P.C. for 15 days.
On 1st August when the period of the petitioners first remand expired, again numbercharge sheet was separately filed against him and Dr. C. Ramadass.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
On this premise the petitioner questioned the vires of s. 344 1A and 2 and the explanation.
This crime had been registered in January, 1970 in which more than 148 persons were sought to be proceeded against.
120 B, 121 A 122 read with 302 and 395, I.P.C. in Crime No.
The petitioner and one Dr. C. Ramadass were number specifically named.
Central Jail, Rajahmundry Andhra Pradesh .
Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for the respondent.
513 of 1970.
They were apparently included in the expression others.
Petition under Art.
The petitioner appeared in person.
The present petition dated 22nd August, 1970 was forwarded to this Court through the Superintendent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J. The petitioner, A. Lakshmanrao, an Advocate practicing at Narasipatnam in the district of Visakhapatnam in the State of Andhra Pradesh has applied under Art.
32 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas companypus on the following averments The petitioner, while going home from the companyrt, was arrested on 17th July, 1970 at about 12.30 in the afternoon.
P.C. Even in this preliminary charge sheet the names of the petitioner and Dr. Ramadass were number included.
He was produced before a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 18th July and remanded to judicial custody under s. 167 2 , Cr.
On 20th August he was number produced in the companyrt because of want of escort and the order of remand was made in his absence.
He has expressed ignorance about the period of this remand.
The remand order dated 20th August, 1970 which was made in his absence because he companyld number be produced before the companyrt on the ground of lack of escort is challenged on the further ground that the law does number permit remand orders without the actual production of the accused before the companyrt According to the petitioner who himself argued his case, s. 344 1A , Cr.
In the companynter affidavit sworn by the Judicial Magistrate in whose companyrt the case against the petitioner is pending, while referring to the proceedings held on 1st August, 1970, it is affirmed that the petitioner and Dr. C. Ramadass were produced in companyrt and it was submitted by them that since their names had number shown in the preliminary charge sheet the companyrt had numberpower to extend the period of reman.
The names of only 148 accused persons were specifically mentioned.
149 and 150 suspected of having companymitted offences under ss.
A bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner and Dr. C. Ramadass was thereafter argued by the petitioner and the matter was adjourned to 6th August, 1970 for orders when that application was disposed of.
