A. LAKSHMANARAO vs JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, 1ST CLASS, PARVATIPURAM & ORS. Supreme Court, 24-11-1970
| Judge | DUA,I.D. |
| Parties | A. LAKSHMANARAOJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, 1ST CLASS, PARVATIPURAM & ORS. |
| Date | 24 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | Writ Petition (Civil) 513 of 1970 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
PETITIONER:
A. LAKSHMANARAO
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, 1ST CLASS, PARVATIPURAM & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
24/11/1970
BENCH:
DUA, I.D.
BENCH:
DUA, I.D.
SIKRI, S.M.
BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA
CITATION:
1971 AIR 186 1971 SCR (2) 822
1970 SCC (3) 501
CITATOR INFO :
R 1972 SC 711 (12)
R 1975 SC1465 (6)
ACT:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s. 344(1A)-Validity-Power
to adjourn and power to remand-Whether guidelines absent-
Order of remand whether must be made in presence of accused
to be valid.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner was arrested on July 17, 1970 and was
produced before a first class Magistrate next day when he
was remanded to judicial custody under s. 167(2) Cr. P.C.
for 15 days. He was informed at the time of remand that his
arrest was in connection with a case relating to dacoity and
murder and conspiracy to commit the same. Although a
charge-sheet had been submitted against about 148 persons
accused in the case the petitioners’ name was not among
them, because as the police later explained, investigations
against him had not been completed. The petitioner objected
to a second remand on August 1, 1970 but that very day the
prosecution filed a supplementary charge-sheet including his
name. Remand was then extended upto- August 6 and
thereafter upto August 20, 1970. On the last mentioned date
he was not produced before the magistrate because of alleged
want of escort and the remand was extended in his absence.
In a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution the
petitioner challenged his detention from August 1 onwards.
The remand order of August 20 was challenged on the ground
that it was made in his absence and it was urged that the
law does not permit remand without actual production of the
accused before the Court. The constitutional validity of s.
344(1A) and of the Explanation to the section was also
challenged.
HELD : (1) In view of this Court’s decision in Rai Narain’s
case it could no longer be urged that the production of an
accused before the magistrate for the purpose of remand was
a necessary requirement. though as a rule of caution it is
highly desirable that the accused should be personally
produced before the magistrate so that he may if he so
To continue reading
Request your trial