9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of initial detention without informing the grounds of arrest. 2. Jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Darjeeling to authorize detention. 3. Compliance with the warrant for production issued by the Special Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Detailed Analysis: Re: Grounds A and B These grounds pertain to the legality of the initial detention of the petitioner in the District Jail, Darjeeling. The Court deemed it unnecessary to decide on these grounds. It is well-settled that the legality of detention in a habeas corpus proceeding is examined with reference to the date on which the application for habeas corpus is made. This principle was articulated in A. K. Gopalan v. Government of India ([1966] 2 S.C.R. 427) where it was stated, "It is well settled that in dealing with the petition for habeas corpus the Court is to see whether the detention on the date on which the application is made to the Court is legal." The Court noted that the writ petition was filed on 6th January 1973, and on that date, the petitioner was detained in the Central Jail, Visakhapatnam. The initial detention in the District Jail, Darjeeling had ended long before the filing of the writ petition. Therefore, the legality of the detention in the Central Jail, Visakhapatnam must be judged on its own merits, rendering the discussion of grounds A and B unnecessary. Re: Ground C The primary question was whether the detention of the petitioner in the Central Jail, Visakhapatnam was illegal. The challenge was based on the assertion that the officer in charge of the District Jail, Darjeeling was bound to abstain from complying with the warrant for production issued by the Special Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, as per Section 6 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955. The Court found this ground to be without substance, emphasizing the proviso to Section 6. The relevant sections of the Act were examined: - Section 3(1) allows any civil or criminal court to order the production of a person confined in prison if their evidence is material to a matter pending before it. - Section 3(2) allows a criminal court to order the production of a person confined in prison if a charge of an offense against them is made or pending. - Section 5 mandates the officer in charge of the prison to produce the person named in the order in court. - Section 6 lists circumstances under which the officer in charge of the prison must abstain from complying with the order, including if the person is under committal for trial, under remand pending trial, or declared unfit to be removed due to sickness. The proviso to Section 6 states that the officer shall not abstain if: 1. The order is made by a criminal court. 2. The person is confined under committal for trial or under remand pending trial and is not declared unfit to be removed due to sickness. 3. The place where the evidence is required is not more than five miles from the prison. In this case, the petitioner was under remand pending preliminary investigation, satisfying the conditions in clauses (i) and (ii). Clause (iii) was deemed inapplicable as it pertains to orders for giving evidence, not answering charges. Therefore, the officer in charge of the District Jail, Darjeeling was bound to comply with the warrant for production, making the subsequent detention in the Central Jail, Visakhapatnam valid. The Court concluded that the production of the petitioner before the Special Judge, Visakhapatnam was lawful and his detention pursuant to the orders of the Special Judge, pending trial, was valid. The writ of habeas corpus could not be granted as the detention was not without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule nisi was discharged. The detention of the petitioner in the Central Jail, Visakhapatnam was upheld as legal.
|
