1970 (11) TMI 103 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the remand orders from 1st August 1970 onwards.
2. Constitutionality of Section 344(1A) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
3. Validity of remand orders without the actual production of the accused before the court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the remand orders from 1st August 1970 onwards:
The petitioner, an advocate, was arrested on 17th July 1970 and remanded to judicial custody under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. for 15 days. He was accused of offenses under Sections 120-B, 121-A, 122 read with 302 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) in Crime No. 3 of 1970 (Parvatipuram Naxalite Conspiracy Case). On 1st August, when the initial remand period expired, no separate charge-sheet was filed against him, and the prosecution sought an extension of the remand. Upon the petitioner's objection, a second preliminary charge-sheet was filed including his name, and the remand was extended. The petitioner challenged the remand orders from 1st August onwards, claiming his detention was illegal. The court found that the remand orders were made in accordance with the law, including the extension of remand on 20th August, despite the petitioner not being produced in court due to a lack of escort.

2. Constitutionality of Section 344(1A) and (2) of the Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner argued that Section 344(1A) of the Cr.P.C. lacks guidelines for the court in making remand orders and is inapplicable during the investigation stage. The court held that Section 344(1A) provides clear guidelines and is not arbitrary. The section allows the court to postpone or adjourn proceedings for reasonable cause and to remand the accused if necessary. The court emphasized that the discretion under this section must be exercised judicially, considering all relevant facts and circumstances, and is subject to review by higher courts. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the section is unconstitutional, stating that the power conferred is judicial and not arbitrary.

3. Validity of remand orders without the actual production of the accused before the court:
The petitioner challenged the remand order dated 20th August 1970, made in his absence due to a lack of escort, arguing that the law does not permit remand orders without the accused's actual production. The court referred to the precedent set in Rai Narain v. Supdt. Central Jail, New Delhi, where it was held that personal presence of the accused is not a necessary requirement for remand under Section 344, Cr.P.C., though it is desirable as a rule of caution. The court concluded that the remand order dated 20th August 1970 was not contrary to law and did not render the petitioner's custody illegal.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the remand orders were lawful and the constitutional challenge to Section 344(1A) of the Cr.P.C. was misconceived. The court affirmed that the judicial discretion exercised under this section is guided by principles of reason and justice, ensuring that the accused's detention is lawful and subject to review by higher courts. The petitioner's detention was found to be in accordance with the law, and his habeas corpus petition was dismissed.