1998 (12) TMI 629 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court.
2. Powers of the police to arrest.
3. Interpretation of the words "other proceeding under this Code" in Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Legality of issuance of Prisoner Transfer (P.T.) warrants by courts outside the state.
5. Rights of the accused under Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. Infringement of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

(a) Territorial Jurisdiction:
The court examined whether it had the territorial jurisdiction to decide on the legality of P.T. warrants issued by courts outside its territorial limits but sought to be executed within its jurisdiction. It concluded that since the execution of the P.T. warrants would take place within its jurisdiction, it had the authority to entertain the matter. The court cited precedents where it entertained cases involving the personal liberty of individuals even when the orders were passed by authorities outside the state.

(b) Powers of the Police to Arrest:
The court outlined the powers of the police to arrest under Sections 41(1)(a), 46, 48, and 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It emphasized that the police have the authority to arrest an accused person anywhere in India and produce them before the nearest magistrate. The court also noted that even if an accused is in judicial custody for one crime, they can be formally arrested for another crime and associated with the investigation of that crime.

(c) Interpretation of "Other Proceeding Under This Code":
The court discussed the interpretation of the words "other proceeding under this Code" in Section 267(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It rejected the narrow interpretation given by the Delhi and Rajasthan High Courts, which excluded investigation from the scope of "other proceeding." Instead, it adopted a broader interpretation, concluding that the words should include proceedings during the investigation, such as test identification parades, recording judicial confessions, and remand proceedings. The court reasoned that a restrictive interpretation would lead to procedural difficulties and affect the larger interests of society.

(d) Legality of Issuance of P.T. Warrants:
The court held that the issuance of P.T. warrants by courts of competent jurisdiction outside the state was legal, provided the accused was formally arrested and the court was informed about the arrest. It emphasized that the court should not be used as a tool to facilitate the police in effecting an arrest but recognized that the P.T. warrants issued in this case were valid subject to the formal arrest of the petitioner.

(e) Rights of the Accused Under Section 269:
The court rejected the argument that Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure conferred any rights on the accused to avoid transfer pursuant to a P.T. warrant. It clarified that Section 269 imposed certain duties on the officer in charge of the prison and did not create any corresponding rights for the accused. The court emphasized that an accused person does not have the right to dictate the manner, mode, and place of their interrogation.

(f) Infringement of Personal Liberty Under Article 21:
The court concluded that the personal liberty of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was not infringed by the issuance or execution of the P.T. warrants. It held that the transfer of custody pursuant to the P.T. warrants was lawful and did not violate the petitioner's personal liberty.

Conclusion:
The petitions were dismissed, and the court upheld the validity of the P.T. warrants issued by the courts outside the state, subject to the formal arrest of the petitioner. The court also directed that the P.T. warrants be kept in abeyance until a specified date to allow the petitioner to seek relief from the Supreme Court of India.