JUDGMENT
Mohini Kapur, J.
1. The question to be decided in this habeas corpus petition is whether under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short *the Code*) production warrant can be issued to require attendance of a prisoner in custody for purposes of investigation in a case registered against him or the production warrant can be issued only for purposes of answering the charge of an offence, or attending any proceedings against him or for examining such prisoners as a witness in the Court.
2. The detenu Moti Lal Sachdeva is a resident of Kota. Two first information reports were registered against him. One at Police Station Bhimganj Mandi, Kota and another at Police Station Tukoganj, Indore (MP). It is not necessary to go into the details of the cases but it may be stated that they relate to stock investments. The detenu was arrested in the case registered at Indore and was detained in the Jail at Indore. The S.H.O. Police Station Bhimganj Mandi, Kota applied before the Additional Chief Judical Magistrate No. 2 Kota for issuance of production warrant of the detenu so that he could be brought from Indore to Kota. The ACJM passed the order and a formal production warrant was issued. The detenu was produced before the ACJM No. 2 Kota and in spite of objections on behalf of the detenu the ACJM Kota passed orders authorising the police to arrest him in the case registered at Kota Police Station. Formal arrest of the detenu was shown on 9- 2-95. Remand for police custody was granted from time to time. This detention under the orders of ACJM, Kota is said to be illegal and without jurisdiction.
Section 267 of the Code reads as under:-
*267. Power to require attendance of Prisoners. (I) Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court:-
(a) that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him, or
(b) that it is necessary for the ends of justice to examine such person as a witness,
the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court for answering to the charge or for the purpose of such proceeding or, as the case may be, for giving evidence.
(2) Where ah order under sub-section (1) is made by a Magistrate of the second class, it shall not be forwarded to, or acted upon by the officer in charge of the prison unless it is countersigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom Magistrate is subordinate.
(3) Every order submitted for countersigning under sub-section (2) shall be accompanied by a statement of facts which in the opinion of the Magistrate, render the order necessary and the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom it is submitted may, after considering such statement, decline to countersign the order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner (who is wife of the detenu) has contended that the detenu was arrested in the case registered against him at Indore and once he was arrested in the Indore case he could not be brought for purposes of investigation to Kota because, the only provision in the Code under which the attendence of a prisoner can be required is Section 267 and under this provision, a prisoner’s attendance, can be required only in the course of inquiry, trial or other proceedings, In the present matter no inquiry, trial or proceeding was pending before the ACJM, Kota hence he could not direct for the production of the detenu and then detain him in Judicial Custody. The detention is said to be ab initio void. It is contended that the word* other proceedings used in Section 267 of the Code does not relate to investigation by the police.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Harshad S. Mehta v. C.B.I. (1992) 3 CCR 2793). In this case it has been held that the Court can exercise the powers under Section 267 Cr. P.C. only for the. purpose of asking an accused detained in a case in another Jail to answer to the charge in inquiry or trial or in the proceedings pending before him, or for giving evidence as witness in Court but cannot require his attendance to answer the charge in investigation. The term’ other proceedings’ has been examined at length in order to hold that this does not include investigation by the police.
4. The learned Government Advocate has first of all contended that after 21 -2-95 the detenu is not in custody at Kota and he has been sent to the Indore Jail in the case which was pending against him at Indore. Thus, it cannot be said that the detenu is in detention at Kota, the question whether it is illegal or not would not arise. It is contended that the letter sent by the Magistrate at Kota for purposes of obtaining the attendance of the detenu was sent to the CJM Indore for purposes of counter signature and for a direction to produce the detenu before the Court at Kota and it cannot be said that the Magistrate at Kota has directly called an accused from Indore contrary to the provisions of law. This is not a case where the Magistrate at Kota has directly directed the officer in charge of the prison at Indore to produce the detenu at Kota.
5. Before forming any opinion we may also look into the documents which have been placed on record by both the parties which contain the orders passed by the Magistrate at Kota and also the CJM at Indore. Annexure-1 is an application moved before the ACJM 2. Kota on 6-2-95. It is stated in the application that the accused is required in connection with a case registered against him at Kota and that he was in Jail in judicial custody at Indore in connection with a case pending against him there. The prayer was that the production warrant of the detenu be issued for purposes of the case registered against him at Kota. Upon this the ACJM, Kota perused the case diary and ordered that a production warrant be issued in the name of CJM, Indore to be valid up to 9-2-95. A formal letter enclosing the production warrant was written to the CJM, Indore. The request was made that the warrant be countersigned and the Jailor at Indore be directed to hand over the accused to Sub-Inspector Siddiqui who was taking the letter personally. The CJM Indore countersigned the production warrant and the accused was handed over to the Sub-Inspector of Kota with specific direction that he was required in the case at Indore and he should not be released, but after completing proceedings should be returned back to the Central Jail, Indore. At the time of countersigning the warrant, the CJM Indore recorded in the order sheet of the case pending against the detenu at Indore, that the ACJM No. 2 Kota had sent production warrant through Sub-Inspector. Police Station Bhimganj Mandi, Kota and after countersigning the warrant it was handed over to him. In the subsequent order sheet dated 22nd Feb., 1995 shows that the detenu was produced before the CJM Indore from judicial custody. After the detenu was brought to Kota, the SHO Police Station Bhimganj Mandi requested for police remand on which the learned Magistrate, Kota passed order on 9th Feb., 1995 sending the detenu to police remand for one day. In this order, objections of the accused that he could not be detained under Section 267 of the Code was considered. In this order, it has also been mentioned that the accused was granted anticipatory bail in the case registered Kota. Subsequently this was can- celled, and in between, on the request of Police Station Tukoganj. Indore, the accused was arrested and handed over to Indore police. After this the Police of Bhimganj Mandi, Kota wanted to arrest the accused. It was observed in the order that under Section 267 of the Code an accused could be produced for purposes of answering the charge or for any proceedings or for evidence, and as a case was registered against him and earlier the accused could not be arrested because of anticipatory bail he could be arrested now and permission for arrest was given.
6. We may now refer to the provisions of Section 267 of the Code. On a plain reading, this provision is applicable to all cases where the accused is detained in prison and his attendance is required before the Court. The attendance may be required in the course of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings, for purposes of answering the charge of an offence or for purposes of any proceedings against him or for the ends of justice to examine such a prisoner as witness. It is under this provision that the accused is directed to be produced before, the Court on all dates of hearing. If the accused is facing inquiry or trial in more than one case then he may be directed to be produced before the Court by both the Courts before which inquiry, trial or proceeding is pending. Section- 267 of the Code allows to produce a prisoner from prison by any Court in the course of inquiry or trial or other proceedings under the Code or for answering a charge or for examining as a witness. Hence the purpose for which person confined or detained in jail could be ordered to be produced before the Court is limited. Investigation of the offence by the police and interrogation cannot fall under the purposes which are included in Section 267 of the Code. We are in agreement with the Delhi High Court view that investigation by police cannot be included in any other proceedings as they are not proceedings before the Court.
7. For the sake of argument it may be said that the detenu was produced from the Jail at Indore and brought to Kota by the order of the CJM Indore and he could have directed the accused to be taken at any other place for purposes of interrogation and investigation in a case pending against him. However, in this case the CJM Indore has merely countersigned a warrant, hence it is not necessary to discuss whether the Court in which the case of an accused is pending and directed to send the accused from the prison for purpose of investigation in another case.
8. The further submission of the learned Government Advocate is that the detenu is no longer in detention at Kota hence there is no illegal detention. After showing his arrest in the Kota case he has been sent back to Indore for facing trial in the Indore case. The attendance at Kota in pursuance of the production warrant has come to an end. Therefore, there is no detention in pursuance of the production warrant which is said to be illegal. According to the Govt. Advocate the remedy available to the detenu is to seek bail in both the cases pending against him. A declaration that his detention was illegal, can only confine to the period he remained at Kota by virtue of the production warrant and this has come to an end.
9. The petitioner’s husband is no longer in illegal detention hence this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.