2000 (9) TMI 1091 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Application for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus due to alleged illegal detention in violation of Cr.P.C.
- Interpretation of Section 309, Cr.P.C. regarding the production of accused before the Court of Session.
- Whether the accused need to be produced before the Court of Session every fifteen days.
- Expedited trial and production of accused from jail custody.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming illegal detention in violation of Cr.P.C. Sections 167, 208, and 309. The case involved a registered criminal case under IPC Sections 366A/376/34 based on an informant's statement alleging abduction and rape. The petitioners challenged their detention solely on the ground of not being produced before the Court of Session after the case was committed, despite other procedural irregularities raised being deemed irrelevant for the habeas corpus application.

2. The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of Section 309, Cr.P.C. which mandates the expeditious conduct of proceedings. The Court clarified that the requirement to produce the accused every fifteen days as per Section 309 applies to Magistrates, not the Court of Session. When a case is committed to the Court of Session and the accused is remanded to custody, the remand is until the conclusion of the trial, as specified under Section 209(b), Cr.P.C.

3. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate's order remanding the accused to custody until the trial's conclusion remains valid even after the case is committed to the Court of Session. The accused need not be produced before the Court of Session every fifteen days, as the fifteen-day limit for remand applies to Magistrates only, not the Court of Session.

4. Acknowledging the need for an expedited trial, the Court directed the trial Court to ensure the timely production of the accused from jail custody on all scheduled trial dates. The Court emphasized the importance of expediting the trial process and instructed the trial Court to take necessary action against any default in producing the accused in accordance with the law.

5. In conclusion, the application for the writ of habeas corpus was dismissed, with the Court highlighting the importance of expediting the trial and ensuring the proper production of the accused from jail custody on all trial dates for a fair and efficient judicial process.