March 12 (1953) RAM NARAYAN SINGH v. THE s·rATE OF DELHI AND OTHERS. [PATANJALr SAs1·nr C. J., MrKHER.TEA, S. R. DAs, GHULAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] Criminal trial-Adjouriiment of case -No order remanding
accused to custody – Legality of detention ·-Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, s. 344-Habeas corpus. In habeas corpus proceedings the Court is to have regard to the legality or otherwise of the detention at the time of the return and not with reference to the institution of the proceedings. Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires a Magis· trate, if he chooses to adjourn a case, " to remand by warrant the accused if in custody" and provides further that every order made under this section by a Court other than a High ,Court shall be in writing. Where a trying Niagistrate adjourned a case by an order in writing but there was nothing in writing on the record to show that he made an order remanding the accused to custody: Held, that the detention of the accused after the order of adjourn- ment was illegal.
Those who feel called upon to deprive other persons of their personal liberty in the discharge of ovhat they conceive to be their duty, must strictly and scrupulously observe the forms and rules of the law.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 54 of 1953. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Jai Gopal Sethi and Veda Vy'.Ls (S. K. K'ip1ir,
A. K. Dutt, A. N. Chana, R. Pathnaik and A. N. Sinha, with them) for the petitioners. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Porus A. Mehta, with him) for the respondents. 1953. March Ll. The J udgmeut of the Court was
delivered by the Chief Justice. PATANJALI SASTRI c. J.-This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by one Ham Narayan Singh on behalf of four gentlemen, namely, Dr. S. P.
Mukerjee, Shri N. C. Chatterjee, Pandit Nandlal Sharma and Pandit Guru Dutt Vaid, who are the r~al petitioners in the case. These persoIJ,s were S.C.R. arre.sted on the evening of the· 6th March, 1953, and
they are now being prosecuted for alleged defiance of an order prohibiting meetings and processions in the area in question, au offence punishable under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
Their detention is sought to be justified ou the basis of two remand orders, the one alleged to have been passed by :\1 r. Dhillon, Additional District Magistrate, Delhi; at about 8 p. m. on the 6th March,
1953, aud the other alleged to have been passed by the t·ryiug Magistrnte at about 3 p. m. on the 9th March while adjourning the case on the re.presenta- tion made before him that a habeas corpu.i petition
was being moved in this Court. Various questions of law and fact have been argued before us by Mr. Sethi on behalf of the petitioner, but we consider it unnecessary to enter upon a discussion
of tho,e questions, as it is now conc'eded that the first order of remand d::ited the. 6th March even assuming it was a valid one expired on the 9th :\larch and is no longer in force.
As regard; the order of remand alleged to have been made by the trying Magistrate on the 9th March, the position is as follows :-The trying Magistrate was obviously proceeding at that
>tage nuder section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires him, if he chooses to adjourn the case pending before him, "to remand by warrant· the accused if in custody," and it goes on to provide:
Every order made under this section by a court other than a High Court shall be in writing signed by the presiding Judge or Magistrate. The order of the ~Iagistrate under this section was produced before us
in compliance with an order of this Court made on the 10th March, which directed the production in this Court as early as possible of the records before the Additional District Magistrate and the trying
l\if.agistrate together with the remand papers for inspection by Counsel for the petitioner. The order produc"ed merely directs the adjournment of the case till the 11th March and coutains no direction for
remanding the accused to custody till that date. Lasb ~5 Riun. Narayan Singh v. The State of Delhi and Others. Patanjaii Sastri 0. J, Wb8 Ra11t Narayan Singh v. Th• State of Delhi
and Othdrs. Patanjali Sastri G. J. SUPREME COCRT REPOHTS (1953] evening, four slips oJ paper were' handed to. the Registrar of this Court at 5-20 p. m. On one side they purport to be warrants of detention dated 6th
March and addressed to the Superintendent of Jail, Delhi, directing the accused to be kept in judicial lock-up and to be produced in court on the 9th March 1953. These warrants contain on their back the
following endorsements : '''Remanded to judicial till 11th March, 1953." In a question of habeas corpus, when the lawfulness or otherwise of the custody of the persons concerned is in question, it is obvious that these documents, if
genuine would be of vital importance, but they were not produced, notwithstanding the clear direction contained in our order of the 10th March. 'rhe court records produced before us do not contain any order
of remand made on the 9th March. As we have already observed, we have the order of the trying Magistrate merely adjourning the case to the 11th. Tbe Solicitor-General appearing on behalf of the
Government explains that these slips of paper, which would be of crucial importance to the case, were with a police officer who was present in court yesterday, but after the Court rose in the evening the latter
thong ht that their production might be of some importance and therefore they were filed before the .Registrar at 5-20 p. m. vVe cannot take notice of documents produced in such circumstances,. and we
are not satisfied that there was any order of remand committing the accused to further custody till the 11th March. It has been held by this Court that in habeas corpus proceedings, the Court is to have regard
to the legality or otherwise of the detention at the time of the return and not with reference to the institution of the proceedings. The material date on the facts of this case is the 10th March, when the
affidavit on behalf of the Government was filed justifying the detention as a lawful one. But the position, as we have stated, is that on that date there was no order remanding the four persons to custodv.
!j'his Court has often reiterated before that those who 8.C.R. feel called upon to deprive other persons of their persoi;ial liberty in the discharge ·of what they conceive to be then· duty, must strictly and scrupu-
lously observe the forms and rules of the law. That . has not been done in this case. The petitioners now before us are therefore entitled to be released and they are set at liberty forthwith.
Petition allowed. Agent for the petitioner: Ganpat Rai. Agent for the respondents: G. H. Rajadhyakshri. SATISH CHANDHA ANAND v. THE UNION OF iNDIA. (PATANJALI SASTRI 0.J.,'MUKHEHJEA, VIVIAN BOSE,
GHULA~I HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] Constitution of India, 1050, Arts. 14, 16, 311- Civil servant- Appointment on contract for 5 years-Continuation of appointment on temporary service basis-Tarrnination of service on one month's notice-Legality·- Fundamental
rights-Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, r. fi. The petitioner was employed by the Government of India on . a five year contract in the Resettlement and Employment Direc- torate of the Ministry of Labour. When bis contract was due to expire the Government made him a n.ew offer to
continu~ him ~n service in his post temporarily for the period of the Resettlement and Employment Organisation on the condition that he will be governed by the Central Ciyil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, which provided for termination of the contract by one month's notice on either side. He accepted \be offer and continued in service, but subsequently his services were terminated after giving him one month's notice. The- petitioner applied for reiief under Art. 32 (1) of the Constitution alleging Iba\ his funda- mental rights under Arts. 311, 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution were infringed:
Held, (i) that Art. 311 bad no application as this was not a case of dismissal or removal from service nor a reduction in rank but only an ordinary case of a contract being terminated by notice under one of its clauses,· the difference between dismiesal and Rani Narayan.
Singh v • Th• Stat• of Delhi and Othsr3. Patanja.lS Sa~tl'i 0. I. Mar•k la