{"id":179741,"date":"1970-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970"},"modified":"2018-11-15T00:00:32","modified_gmt":"2018-11-14T18:30:32","slug":"a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970","title":{"rendered":"A. Lakshmanarao vs Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, … on 24 November, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
A. Lakshmanarao vs Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, … on 24 November, 1970<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 186, \t\t 1971 SCR (2) 822<\/div>\n
Author: I Dua<\/div>\n
Bench: Dua, I.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nA.   LAKSHMANARAO\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, 1ST CLASS, PARVATIPURAM & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/11\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR  186\t\t  1971 SCR  (2) 822\n 1970 SCC  (3) 501\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1972 SC 711\t (12)\n R\t    1975 SC1465\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s.  344(1A)-Validity-Power\nto  adjourn and power to remand-Whether\t guidelines  absent-\nOrder of remand whether must be made in presence of  accused\nto be valid.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  petitioner\t was  arrested\ton July\t 17,  1970  and\t was\nproduced  before a first class Magistrate next day  when  he\nwas  remanded to judicial custody under s. 167(2) Cr.\tP.C.\nfor 15 days.  He was informed at the time of remand that his\narrest was in connection with a case relating to dacoity and\nmurder\tand  conspiracy\t to commit  the\t same.\t Although  a\ncharge-sheet  had been submitted against about\t148  persons\naccused\t in  the case the petitioners' name  was  not  among\nthem, because as the police later explained,  investigations\nagainst him had not been completed.  The petitioner objected\nto  a second remand on August 1, 1970 but that very day\t the\nprosecution filed a supplementary charge-sheet including his\nname.\t Remand\t was  then  extended  upto-  August  6\t and\nthereafter upto August 20, 1970.  On the last mentioned date\nhe was not produced before the magistrate because of alleged\nwant  of escort and the remand was extended in his  absence.\nIn  a  petition\t under\tArt.  32  of  the  Constitution\t the\npetitioner challenged his detention from August 1  onwards.\nThe  remand order of August 20 was challenged on the  ground\nthat  it was made in his absence and it was urged  that\t the\nlaw does not permit remand without actual production of\t the\naccused before the Court.  The constitutional validity of s.\n344(1A)\t and  of  the Explanation to the  section  was\talso\nchallenged.\nHELD : (1) In view of this Court's decision in Rai  Narain's\ncase  it could no longer be urged that the production of  an\naccused before the magistrate for the purpose of remand\t was\na  necessary requirement. though as a rule of caution it  is\nhighly\tdesirable  that\t the accused  should  be  personally\nproduced  before  the  magistrate so that he may  if  he  so\nchooses make a representation against his remand.  The order\nof remand dated August 20, 1970 was in the circumstances not\ncontrary  to  law so as to render the  petitioner's  custody\nillegal\t justifying  his  release by this  Court  on  habeas\ncorpus.\t  It was still open to the petitioner to  apply\t for\nbail to the appropriate court in accordance with law.\nRai  Narain  v. Supdt.\tCentral Jail, New  Delhi,<\/a>  [1971]  2\nS.C.R. 147 applied. [826 G-827 C]\n(ii)Sub-section\t (1A)  of s. 344 of the code  vests  in\t the\ncourt  seized  of  a criminal case, power  to  postpone\t the\ncommencement  of or adjourn any inquiry or trial before\t him\nby order in writing stating the reasons therefore from\ttime\nto  time on such terms as the court thinks fit and for\tsuch\ntime  as  it  considers reasonable.  When  the\tcase  is  so\npostponed  or  adjourned  the court may also  by  a  warrant\nremand\tthe  accused,  if in  custody.\t The  discretion  to\nadjourn\t being vested in a court of law has to be  exercised\njudicially  on well recognised principles and  is  therefore\nimmune from challenge on the ground of arbitrariness or want\nof  guidelines.\t The judicial power to postpone\t or  adjourn\nthe proceedings is to be exer-\n\t\t\t    823\ncises  only  it from the absence of witnesses or  any  other\nreasonable  cause  the\tcourt  considers  it  necessary\t  or\ndesirable  to  do so.  It has to record its reasons  for  so\ndoing.\t Similarly  the discretion to order  remand  of\t the\naccused\t is to be exercised judicially keeping in  view\t all\nthe facts and circumstances of the case including the nature\nof  the charge the gravity of the alleged offence, the\tarea\nof  investigation,  the antecedents of the accused  and\t all\nother  relevant\t factors which may  appropriately  help\t the\ncourt in determining whether to keep the accused in  custody\nor  to\trelease him on bail.  Reasonable  cause\t for  remand\naccording to the explanation covers a case where  sufficient\nevidence is obtained to raise suspicion about the complicity\nof  an accused person in the offence and it  appears  likely\nthat more evidence may be obtained by remand. [828 C-E]\nFurther, both the order of adjournment as well as the  order\nof  remand are subject to review by the superior  courts  in\naccordance  with law.  The challenge to the validity  of  s.\n344(1A)\t on the ground of want of guidelines must  therefore\nfail. [829 H-830 A]\n(iii)The  suggestion  that the\texplanation  could  not\nextend the substantive provisions of sub-s. (1A) has  merely\nto  be stated to be rejected because the explanation  merely\nserves\tto explain the scope of the  expression reasonable\ncause. [829 E]\n(iv)The argument that since s. 344 falls in Ch. 24 Cr. P.C.\nwhich contains general provisions as to inquiries and trials\nand  therefore\tit cannot apply to a Case at  the  stage  of\ninvestigation and collection of evidence is negatived by the\nexpress language of sub-s. (1A) and the explanation.   Under\nsub-s. (1A) commencement of the inquiry or trial can also be\npostponed.   This clearly seems to refer to the stage  prior\nto  the commencement of the inquiry.  The explanation  makes\nit clear beyond doubt that reasonable cause as mentioned  in\nsub-s.\t(1A)  includes the likelihood of  obtaining  further\nevidence during investigation by securing a remand.   Indeed\na  postponement\t of  an inquiry on trial also  seems  to  be\nwithin\tthe  contemplation of the general provisions  as  to\ninquiries and trials. [829 C-D]\n[Plea to reopen Rai Narain's case rejected.]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 513 of 1970.
\nPetition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for writ
\nin the nature of habeas corpus.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner appeared in person.\n<\/p>\n
P. Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDua,   J.  The\tpetitioner,  A.\t Lakshmanrao,  an   Advocate
\npracticing at Narasipatnam in the district of  Visakhapatnam
\nin the State of Andhra Pradesh has applied under Art. 32  of
\nthe  Constitution  for\ta  writ\t of  habeas  corpus  on\t the
\nfollowing averments
\nThe  petitioner,  while\t going\thome  from  the\t court,\t was
\narrested on 17th July, 1970 at about 12.30 in the afternoon.
\nHe  was not shown any warrant at the time of his arrest.  He
\nwas  produced before a Judicial Magistrate, First Class,  on
\n18th July and
\n824<\/span>
\nremanded to judicial custody under s. 167 (2), Cr. P.C.\t for
\n15  days.   At\tthe time of remand he was  informed  by\t the
\nMagistrate that he was accused of offenses under ss.  120-B,
\n121-A  122 read with 302 and 395, I.P.C. in Crime No.  3  of
\n1970 (known as Parvatipuram Naxalite Conspiracy Case).\tThis
\ncrime  had  been registered in January, 1970 in\t which\tmore
\nthan  148 persons were sought to be proceeded against.\t The
\nnames\tof  only  148  accused\tpersons\t were\tspecifically
\nmentioned.  The petitioner and one Dr. C. Ramadass were\t not
\nspecifically  named.  They were apparently included  in\t the
\nexpression “others”.  On 30th March, 1970 a report was filed
\nby the Investigating Officer describing it as a\t preliminary
\ncharge-sheet  in which it was stated that the  investigation
\nin  the\t case  had not been completed  and  several  accused
\npersons had yet to be traced.  This report, according to the
\naverments,  does not fall under S. 173(1), Cr.P.C.  Even  in
\nthis  preliminary charge-sheet the names of  the  petitioner
\nand Dr. Ramadass were not included.  On 1st August when\t the
\nperiod\tof the petitioner’s first remand expired,  again  no
\ncharge-sheet  was  separately filed against him and  Dr.  C.
\nRamadass.  The prosecution, however, sought extension of the
\nperiod\tof remand.. When the petitioner objected to  further
\nremand\ta second preliminary charge-sheet was  presented  to
\nthe  court  on\tthat very day  specifically  including\tthe
\npetitioner’s  name.  His remand was thereupon extended\tupto
\n6th August and thereafter upto 20th August.  On 20th  August
\nhe  was not produced in the court because of want of  escort
\nand  the  order of remand was made in his absence.   He\t has
\nexpressed ignorance about the period of this remand.
\nThe  present petition dated 22nd August, 1970 was  forwarded
\nto  this  Court through the Superintendent.   Central  Jail,
\nRajahmundry (Andhra Pradesh).  The petitioner challenges the
\nremand\torders from the 1st August onwards and\tclaims\tthat
\nhis  detention is illegal and that he is entitled to be\t set
\nat liberty.  The remand order dated 20th August, 1970  which
\nwas  made  in his absence because he could not\tbe  produced
\nbefore\tthe  court  on\tthe ground  of\tlack  of  escort  is
\nchallenged  on\tthe  further ground that the  law  does\t not
\npermit\tremand orders without the actual production  of\t the
\naccused before the court:\n<\/p>\n
According to the petitioner who himself argued his case,  s.
\n344(1A),  Cr.P.C.  does not contain any guidelines  for\t the
\ncourt in the matter of remand orders and he added that\tthis
\nsection\t is otherwise too inapplicable to the  investigation
\nstage  of criminal cases.  When his attention was  drawn  to
\nthe explanation to s. 344, according to which the likelihood
\nof further evidence being obtained by the remand in cases of
\nsuspicion  against an accused person raised by the  evidence
\nalready obtained, he contended that the
\n825<\/span>
\nexplanation  could not, as a matter of law, serve to  extend
\nthe  scope of the substantive provision contained in  sub-s.
\n(1A).\tOn this premise the petitioner questioned the  vires
\nof s. 344(1A) and (2) and the explanation.\n<\/p>\n
In  the counter-affidavit sworn by the Judicial-  Magistrate
\nin  whose court the case against the petitioner is  pending,
\nwhile referring to the proceedings held on 1st August, 1970,
\nit is affirmed that the petitioner and Dr. C. Ramadass\twere
\nproduced  in court and it was submitted by them\t that  since
\ntheir  names had not shown in the  preliminary\tcharge-sheet
\nthe  court  had no power to extend the period of  reman.  On
\nthat  very  day the prosecution filed a\t second\t preliminary
\ncharge-sheet  in  which the petitioner and Dr.\tC.  Ramadass
\nwere  shown as accused nos. 149 and 150 suspected of  having
\ncommitted offences under ss. 120-B, 121A, 122 read with\t 302
\nand  395,  I.P.C.  The Court thereupon passed  an  order  of
\nremand in respect of both of them.  A bail application filed
\non  behalf  of\tthe  petitioner\t and  Dr.  C.  Ramadass\t was
\nthereafter  argued  by\tthe petitioner and  the\t matter\t was
\nadjourned   to\t6th  August,  1970  for\t orders\t when\tthat
\napplication was disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
On  behalf of the other respondents a lengthy affidavit\t has
\nbeen  sworn by S. Veeranarayanareddi, Deputy  Superintendent
\nof  Police,  Crime  Branch,  C.I.D.,  Government  of  Andhra
\nPradesh,  Hyderabad.  It is affirmed in this affidavit\tthat
\nthe  petitioner is an-active Naxalite and along with  others
\nis  accused  of charges under ss. 120-B read with  ss.\t302,
\n395,  397, 399, 364, 365, 368 and 386, I.P.C. in P.R.C.\t No.
\n3\/70,  pending\tin  the Court of the  Judicial\tFirst  Class
\nMagistrate, Parvatipuram Taluk.\t A separate complaint  under
\nss. 121-A and 120-B read with 121, 122, 123 and 124A, I.P.C.
\nis  also  stated to have been filed  against  the  aforesaid
\npersons including the petitioner in the same court in P.R.C.
\n8  of  1970.   These two cases\tare  known  as\tParvatipuram
\nNaxalite  Conspiracy  Cases and relate to  46  murders,\t 82,
\ndacoities, 99 attacks on police and 15 abductions  committed
\nby  the\t accused  persons in Andhra  Pradesh.\tThe  accused
\npersons are also alleged to have committed several  offences
\nof  the types just mentioned in the Agency Tracts of  Orissa
\nbordering Andhra Pradesh.  The Government of Andhra  Pradesh
\nhad  on\t account of the gravity of  the\t situation  declared
\ncertain areas affected by the Naxalite menace in  Srikakulam
\nand Warangal Districts as disturbed areas Under s. 3 of\t the
\nAndhra\tPradesh Suppression of Disturbances Act,  1948.\t  In
\nthe  affidavit certain incidents have been traced from\t1964
\nand  it\t is affirmed that as a result of  various  political
\ndevelopments certain volunteers were recruited from  various
\nparts  of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioner helped  them  in
\ncreating  revolutionary\t bases\tin  the\t agency\t tracts\t  of
\nVisakhapatnam  District.  There is also reference to one  of
\nthe  accused persons having become an approver and  another
\nhaving made a confes-\n<\/p>\n
826<\/span><\/p>\n
sional\tstatement.  After stating various  facts  discovered
\nduring\tinvestigation it is affirmed that the  investigation
\nof  this  case is limited not only to the  State  of  Andhra
\nPradesh\t but  it extends to several States  where  naxalite,
\nmovement  has spread, including West Bengal and Orissa,\t and
\nas  many as 900 witnesses have already been examined  during
\nthe  course  of investigation which has\t taken\tnearly\tnine
\nmonths.\t Sanction of the State Government has also been\t ob-
\ntained\tfor the prosecution of the petitioner and the  other
\naccused persons under s. 196, Cr.P.C. On 12th October,\t1970
\nthe  investigation  was completed and a\t final\tcharge-sheet
\nfiled in the court of the Judicial Magistrate in P.R.C.\t No.
\n3  of 1970.  The separate complaint against  the  petitioner
\nand  other accused persons mentioned earlier was also  filed
\nin the court of the Judicial Magistrate under ss. 121A, 120B
\nread with 121, 123 and 124A, I.P.C. on the same day.  It  is
\nadmitted that the preliminary charge-sheet is not covered by
\ns.  173(1),  Cr.P.C.  But it is averred that it\t is  only  a
\nreport\tpending further investigation seeking  extension  of
\nremand\t under\t s.  344,  Cr.P.C.  The\t  long\t period\t  of
\ninvestigation  has been ascribed to the fact that there\t was
\nan  organised attempt on the part of the accused  and  their
\nfollowers  to  thwart  the, efforts of\tthe  authorities  in
\nbringing the accused to book.  It is admitted that the peti-
\ntioner\tis lodged in Central Jail, Rajahmundry and  that  on
\n20th August, 1970 he could not be produced before the  court
\nfor  lack of escort.  The; remand is also admitted  to\thave
\nbeen extended by the Magistrate, respondent No. 1, from time
\nto  time  on 3rd and 17th September and 1st  October,  1970.
\nThe  court, it is pleaded, is empowered to pass an order  of
\nremand\teven  in the absence of the accused  under  s.\t344,
\nCr.P.C.\t unlike\t the  remand order  under  s.  167,  Cr.P.C.
\nIncidentally, in this counter-affidavit there is a reference
\nto  the prejudicial activities in which the  petitioner\t has
\nbeen  indulging in connection with Naxalite  movement.\t The
\ninitial\t non-inclusion of his name in the array\t of  accused
\npersons’  has been explained on the ground  that  sufficient
\ncorroboration of the approver’s testimony incriminating\t the
\npetitioner was not forthcoming at that stage.
\nIn so far as, the question of- legality of the remand  order
\ndated  20th  August, 1970 without producing  the  petitioner
\nbefore a Magistrate is concerned, the point is concluded  by
\na recent judgment of this Court in the case of Rai Narain v.
\nSupdt.\tCentral Jail, New Delhi<\/a>(1).  In that case this Court
\nby  majority  expressed\t the view that as a  matter  of\t law
\npersonal  presence of an accused person before a  Magistrate
\nis not a necessary requirement for the purpose of his remand
\nunder s. 344, Cr.P.C., at the instance of the police, though
\nas a rule of caution it is highly desirable that the accused
\nshould be personally produced before the Magistrate so\tthat
\nhe may,
\n(1)  (1971) S.C.R. 147
\n\t\t\t    827<\/span>
\nif  he so chooses, make a representation against his  remand
\nand for, his release on bail.  The Court on a review of\t the
\ndecided cases, observed
\n\t      “There  is nothing in the law  which  required
\n\t      his  personal presence before  the  Magistrate
\n\t      because\tthat  is  a  rule  of  caution\t for
\n\t      Magistrates  before  granting remands  at\t the
\n\t      instance\tof the police.\tHowever, even if  it
\n\t      be  desirable for the Magistrates to have\t the
\n\t      prisoner\tproduced  before  them,\t when\tthey
\n\t      recommit him to further custody, a  Magistrate
\n\t      can act only as the circumstances permit.”
\n\t      The  order of remand dated 20th  August,\t1970
\n\t      was  in the circumstances not contrary to\t law
\n\t      so  as  to render\t the  petitioner’s,  custody
\n\t      illegal  justifying his release by this  Court
\n\t      on habeas corpus.\t It is unnecessary to  point
\n\t      out  that\t it was and still is  open  to\tthe,
\n\t      petitioner to apply for his release on bail to
\n\t      the-appropriate  court in accordance with\t law
\n\t      there being no illegal obstacle in his way  in
\n\t      this respect.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  challenge to the constitutional  validity
\n\t      of s. 344(1A), Cr.P.C. is also in our  opinion
\n\t      misconceived.  Section 344 reads
\n\t      ”\t  (1)  In  every  inquiry  or\ttrial,\t the
\n\t      proceedings. shall be held as expeditiously as
\n\t      possible\t and   in   particular,\t  when\t the
\n\t      examination of witnesses, has once begun,\t the
\n\t      same shall be continued from day to day  until
\n\t      all  the\twitnesses in  attendance  have\tbeen
\n\t      examined,\t  unless   the\t Court\t finds\t the
\n\t      adjournment  of the same beyond the  following
\n\t      day   to\tbe  necessary  for  reasons  to\t  be
\n\t      recorded.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1-A)  If, from the absence of a\twitness,  or
\n\t      any   other  reasonable  cause,\tit becomes
\n\t      necessary\t  or  advisable\t to   postpone
\n\t      the  commencement of, or adjourn, any  inquiry
\n\t      or trial, the Court may, if it thinks fit,  by
\n\t      order   in   writing,  stating   the   reasons
\n\t      therefore,  from\ttime to\t time,\tpostpone  or
\n\t      adjourn  the same on such terms as  it  thinks
\n\t      fit, for such time as it considers reasonable,
\n\t      and may by a warrant remand the accused if  in
\n\t      custody:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\tthat no Magistrate shall  remand  an
\n\t      accused  person to custody under this  section
\n\t      for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time
\n\t      Provided\tfurther that when witnesses  are  in
\n\t      attendance.  no  adjournment  or\tpostponement
\n\t      shall  be\t granted,  without  examining  them,
\n\t      except  for special reasons to be recorded  in
\n\t      writing.\n<\/p>\n
\t      828<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (2)Every order made under this section by a
\n\t      Court  other  than a High Court  shall  be  in
\n\t      writing  signed  by  the\tpresiding  Judge  or
\n\t      Magistrate.’
\n\t      Explanation.-If  sufficient evidence has\tbeen
\n\t      obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused
\n\t      may have committed an offence, and it appears
\n\t      likely  that further evidence may be  obtained
\n\t      by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for  a
\n\t      remand.”\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section  (1-A) was originally numb.-red as sub-s. 1\t The
\npresent sub-section (1) of s. 344 was added by the  Amending
\nAct  26\t of  1955  when the  original  sub-section  (1)\t was
\nrenumbered as sub-section (1-A).  The impugned\tsub-section
\nvests  in  the\tcourt seized of a  criminal  case  power  to
\npostpone the commencement of or adjourn any inquiry or trial
\nbefore him by order in writing stating the reasons therefore
\nfrom time to time on such terms as the court thinks fit\t and
\nfor such time as it considers reasonable.  When the case  is
\nso  postponed or adjourned the court may also by  a  warrant
\nremand\tthe accused, if in custody.  This judicial power  to
\npostpone or, adjourn the proceedings is to be exercised only
\nif  from  the absence of witnesses or any  other  reasonable
\ncause the court considers it necessary or advisable to\tdo
\nso.    Reasonable  cause  for  remand  according   to,\t the
\nexplanation  to this section covers a case where  sufficient
\nevidence  is  obtained\tto  raise  a  suspicion\t about\t the
\ncomplicity  of\tan  accused person in  the  offence  and  it
\nappears likely that more evidence may be obtained by remand.
\nThe court has in the exercise of its judicial discretion  in
\ngranting  or  declining postponement or adjournment  of\t the
\ncase and in ordering remand of the accused, to keep in\tview
\nall  the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.\t The
\npetitioner strongly contended that this section clothes\t the
\ncourt  with an unfettered, arbitrary and unguided power.   A
\nplain  reading of the section shows the untenability of\t the
\nsubmission.  Apart from the fact that it is only when either
\nfrom the absence of a witness or some other reasonable cause
\nthe court, considers it either to be necessary or  advisable
\nto  postpone  the commencement of, the inquiry or  trial  or
\nadjourn the hearing of the case that the order can be  made,
\nthe  court is also required to record the order\t in  writing
\ngiving the reasons why it thinks fit that the case should be
\npostponed or adjourned.\t It is further open to the court  to
\nimpose\tterms and to fix the period which cannot  exceed  15
\ndays  at one time.  This discretion being vested in a  court
\nof  law has to be exercised _judicially\t on  well-recognised
\nprinciples, and is in our view immune from challenge on\t the
\nground\tof  arbitrariness  or want of  guidelines.   In\t our
\nopinion,  therefore,  not only are  the\t guidelines  clearly
\ncontained  in the statute but the discretion being  judicial
\nis required to be exercised on general principles guided  by
\nrules of reason and justice on the facts of each case,
\n829<\/span>
\nand not in any arbitrary or fanciful manner.  It may also be
\nremembered  that  if  the  discretion  is  exercised  in  an
\narbitrary  or un-judicial manner remedy by way of resort  to
\nthe higher courts is always open to the aggrieved party.
\nThe second limb of the challenge is based on the  contention
\nthat  s.  344 falls in Chapter 24,  Cr.P.C.  which  contains
\ngeneral provisions as to inquiries and trials.\tAccording to
\nthis submission this section cannot apply to a case which is
\nat  the\t stage of investigation and collection\tof  evidence
\nonly.\tThis argument appears to us to be negatived  by\t the
\nexpress\t language both of sub-s. (1A) and  the\texplanation.
\nUnder  sub-s. (1A) the commencement of the inquiry or  trial
\ncan also be postponed.\tThis clearly seems to refer to\tthe
\nstage  prior  to  the  commencement  of\t the  inquiry.\t The
\nexplanation  makes  it clear beyond  doubt  that  reasonable
\ncause as mentioned in sub-s. (1A) includes the likelihood of
\nobtaining further evidence during investigation by  securing
\na  remand.  The language of s. 344 is unambiguous and  clear
\nand  the fact that this section occurs in Chapter  24  which
\ncontains general provisions as to inquiries and trials\tdoes
\nnot justify a strained construction.  Indeed,  postponement
\nof  an inquiry also seems to be within the contemplation  of
\nthe general provisions as to inquiries and trials.  So\tthis
\nchallenge also fails.\n<\/p>\n
The  suggestion\t that the explanation could not\t extend\t the
\nsubstantive  provisions\t of  sub-s. (1A) has  merely  to  be
\nstated to be rejected because the explanation merely  serves
\nto explain the scope of the expression reasonable cause.
\nThe last submission that there is in any event no  guideline
\nfor  making  a\tremand order and, therefore,  the  power  to
\nremand\tan accused person under s. 344 is ultra vires  being
\narbitrary and’ unguided is wholly unacceptable.\t When a case
\nis postponed or adjourned and the accused is in custody\t the
\ncourt has to exercise its judicial discretion whether or not
\nto  continue him in custody by making a remand\torder.\t The
\ncourt is neither bound to make an order of remand nor is  it
\nbound  to release the accused person.  The period of  remand
\nis  in no case to exceed 15 days at a time.  The  discretion
\nto  make  a  suitable order is to  be  exercised  judicially
\nkeeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the\tcase
\nincluding  the\tnature\tof the charge, the  gravity  of\t the
\nalleged offence, the, area of investigation, the antecedents
\nof  the\t accused and all other relevant\t factors  which\t may
\nappropriately help the court in determining whether to\tkeep
\nthe accused in custody or to release him on bail.  The court
\nhas to ensure the presence of the accused and’ a just,\tfair
\nand  smooth inquiry and trial of the offence  charged.\t The
\norder  of remand is thus subject to judicial discretion\t and
\nthe, order is also subject to review by the superior  courts
\nin accordance,
\n830<\/span>
\nwith law.  The power conferred being judicial the absence of
\nan  express,  precise  standard\t for  determination  of\t the
\nquestion  would\t not render  the  section  unconstitutional.
\nDetention pursuant to an order of remand which appropriately
\nfalls within the terms of s. 344 is accordingly not open to
\nchallenge in habeas corpus.\n<\/p>\n
After  we  had reserved orders the petitioner  forwarded  to
\nthis ;Court through jail supplementary affidavit  containing
\nwritten arguments.  We have gone through the affidavit\tbut
\nwe do not find any new point requiring discussion.  It only
\ndiscloses a further attempt to reopen the majority decision
\nof this Court in Rai Narain’s case (supra) by relying on the
\nminority judgment and by submitting that S. 344(1A), Cr.P.C.
\noffends Art. 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.  All that we need
\nSay  at this stage is that the majority view :is binding  on
\nus.\n<\/p>\n
This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t   Petition dismissed.\n831<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India A. Lakshmanarao vs Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, … on 24 November, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 186, 1971 SCR (2) 822 Author: I Dua Bench: Dua, I.D. 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. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179741","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nA. Lakshmanarao vs Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, ... on 24 November, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. Lakshmanarao vs Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, ... on 24 November, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1970-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-14T18:30:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. Lakshmanarao vs Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, … on 24 November, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-14T18:30:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970\"},\"wordCount\":3086,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970\",\"name\":\"A. Lakshmanarao vs Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, ... on 24 November, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-14T18:30:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. Lakshmanarao vs Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, … on 24 November, 1970\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A. Lakshmanarao vs Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, ... on 24 November, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. Lakshmanarao vs Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, ... on 24 November, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-14T18:30:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. Lakshmanarao vs Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, … on 24 November, 1970","datePublished":"1970-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-14T18:30:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970"},"wordCount":3086,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970","name":"A. Lakshmanarao vs Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, ... on 24 November, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-14T18:30:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-lakshmanarao-vs-judicial-magistrate-1st-class-on-24-november-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. Lakshmanarao vs Judicial Magistrate, 1St Class, … on 24 November, 1970"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179741","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=179741"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179741\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179741"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}