TMI Blog1970 (11) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n registered in January, 1970 in which more than 148 persons were sought to be proceeded against. The names of only 148 accused persons were specifically mentioned. The petitioner and one Dr. C. Ramadass were not specifically named. They were apparently included in the expression others . On 30th March, 1970 a report was filed by the Investigating Officer describing it as a preliminary charge-sheet in which it was stated that the investigation in the case had not been completed and several accused persons had yet to be traced. This report, according to the averments, does not fall under S. 173(1), Cr.P.C. Even in this preliminary charge-sheet the names of the petitioner and Dr. Ramadass were not included. On 1st August when the period of the petitioner's first remand expired, again no charge-sheet was separately filed against him and Dr. C. Ramadass. The prosecution, however, sought extension of the period of remand.. When the petitioner objected to further remand a second preliminary charge-sheet was presented to the court on that very day specifically including the petitioner's name. His remand was thereupon extended upto 6th August and thereafter upto 20th August. On 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... August, 1970 for orders when that application was disposed of. On behalf of the other respondents a lengthy affidavit has been sworn by S. Veeranarayanareddi, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. It is affirmed in this affidavit that the petitioner is an-active Naxalite and along with others is accused of charges under ss. 120-B read with ss. 302, 395, 397, 399, 364, 365, 368 and 386, I.P.C. in P.R.C. No. 3/70, pending in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parvatipuram Taluk. A separate complaint under ss. 121-A and 120-B read with 121, 122, 123 and 124A, I.P.C. is also stated to have been filed against the aforesaid persons including the petitioner in the same court in P.R.C. 8 of 1970. These two cases are known as Parvatipuram Naxalite Conspiracy Cases and relate to 46 murders, 82, dacoities, 99 attacks on police and 15 abductions committed by the accused persons in Andhra Pradesh. The accused persons are also alleged to have committed several offences of the types just mentioned in the Agency Tracts of Orissa bordering Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra Pradesh had on account of the gravity of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccused under s. 344, Cr.P.C. unlike the remand order under s. 167, Cr.P.C. Incidentally, in this counter-affidavit there is a reference to the prejudicial activities in which the petitioner has been indulging in connection with Naxalite movement. The initial non-inclusion of his name in the array of accused persons' has been explained on the ground that sufficient corroboration of the approver's testimony incriminating the petitioner was not forthcoming at that stage. In so far as, the question of- legality of the remand order dated 20th August, 1970 without producing the petitioner before a Magistrate is concerned, the point is concluded by a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Rai Narain v. Supdt. Central Jail, New Delhi((1971) S.C.R. 147). In that case this Court by majority expressed the view that as a matter of law personal presence of an accused person before a Magistrate is not a necessary requirement for the purpose of his remand under s. 344, Cr.P.C., at the instance of the police, 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 chooses, make a representation a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand. Sub-section (1-A) was originally numb.-red as sub-s. 1 The present sub-section (1) of s. 344 was added by the Amending Act 26 of 1955 when the original sub-section (1) was renumbered as sub-section (1-A). The impugned sub-section vests in the court seized of a criminal case power to postpone the commencement of or adjourn any inquiry or trial before him by order in writing stating the reasons therefore from time to time on such terms as the court thinks fit and for such time as it considers reasonable. When the case is so postponed or adjourned the court may also by a warrant remand the accused, if in custody. This judicial power to postpone or, adjourn the proceedings is to be exercised only if from the absence of witnesses or any other reasonable cause the court considers it necessary or advisable to do so. Reasonable cause for remand according to, the explanation to this section covers a case where sufficient evidence is obtained to raise a suspicion about the complicity of an accused person in the offence and it appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther evidence during investigation by securing a remand. The language of s. 344 is unambiguous and clear and the fact that this section occurs in Chapter 24 which contains general provisions as to inquiries and trials does not justify a strained construction. Indeed, postponement of an inquiry also seems to be within the contemplation of the general provisions as to inquiries and trials. So this challenge also fails. The suggestion that the explanation could not extend the substantive provisions of sub-s. (1A) has merely to be stated to be rejected because the explanation merely serves to explain the scope of the expression reasonable cause. The last submission that there is in any event no guideline for making a remand order and, therefore, the power to remand an accused person under s. 344 is ultra vires being arbitrary and' unguided is wholly unacceptable. When a case is postponed or adjourned and the accused is in custody the court has to exercise its judicial discretion whether or not to continue him in custody by making a remand order. The court is neither bound to make an order of remand nor is it bound to release the accused person. The period of remand is in no case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
