Mustafa Usman Landge v. UOI

1. The respondents have placed on record copy of the judicial order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and submits that the Jail Superintendant should not have carried out or implemented or complied with the order dated 2013:DHC:761-DB 29.11.2012. Section 269 of the CrPC which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner reads as under:-

2. We do not think the said provision is applicable to the factual matrix of the present case. The petitioner was detained in Delhi and was in judicial custody in FIR No.16/2012 under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 16/18/18A and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. In the meanwhile, production warrants were issued by a court in Pune. Noticing the said facts Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi has passed the order dated 29.11.2012. Certain and specific directions have been issued in the said order. For the sake of completeness we reproduce the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, which reads as under:- “Production warrants have been received from the court of the Judicial Magistrate FC (AC) Court Pune in respect of the prisoners Imran Khan S/o Wajed Khan Pathan & Irfan Mustfa Langde S/o Mustafa Usman Langde presently lodged in Central Jail No.8 Tihar Delhi in case F.I.R. No.16/12 u/s 120b IPC 16/18/18JA/20 UA(P) Act & 5 EXP.

SUB ACT P.S. SPECIAL CELL. The Production Warrants are for 18-12-12 on the subject noted above. Report of the jail was called which confirms that the prisoners are involved in the case aforesaid where they due to appear on 5-12-12 in the court of Ms. Asha Menon, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi. Since the date of production n the court concerned does not clash with the date of hearing in the case(s) at Delhi. Supdt. Jail is directed to produce the said prisoners before the court concerned in compliance with the production warrants on the date fixed and thereafter to bring back the prisoners to Central Jail, Tihar for the purpose of their case(s) at Delhi. Whenever, these accused are required to be produced in aforesaid court in said case beyond Delhi on intimation about date of hearing or on receipt of Production Warrant for further dates, the Supdt. Jail would be at liberty to comply with such direction, unless such date clashes with date (s) of hearing in the case (s) against the prisoners in Delhi Courts. Supdt. Jail & court concerned be informed accordingly. Copy also be sent to the court of Ms. Asha Menon, Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi for information.”

3. Section 269 CrPC has a purpose and object behind it. An accused, who is facing trial and arrested in one FIR, may be required to enter appearance or appear before a Court in another FIR registered at a different place. The court concerned may, therefore, issue production warrants for appearance of the accused who is detained in a jail at a different place where he is facing trial or under committal proceedings or pending preliminary investigation. In such circumstances, the Officer in charge of the prison may abstain from carrying out the court order, but is required to send a statement of reasons to the said court for so abstaining. The requirement of sending statement of reasons means that there should be a justification and cause why the court’s order should not be followed. In the present case the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi after examining the factual matrix, status and the proceedings pending in Delhi, has passed a judicial order. The said judicial order was required to be complied. The order dated 29.11.2012 is a judicial order issuing directions and not an order issuing production warrant for appearance of an accused who is detained in another jail. It is not an order under Section 267 CrPC. Section 269 is an adjunct to Section 267 CrPC and the two provisions have to be read harmoniously. The main purpose of the said provision is to check delays when criminal proceedings are pending in different courts. The provision does not confer a right or privilege on a prisoner.

4. Any other interpretation would lead to incongruities and undesirable situations where an accused, who is facing prosecution in different courts for separate offences, can delay the subsequent proceedings or investigation relating to subsequent offences till the first proceedings have concluded or come to an end. That obviously was not and cannot be the legislative intent. This would be destructive and prevent speedy disposal of other cases involving heinous or serious offences, whereas the offence in the first case may not be so serious. We cannot ignore that committal proceedings, trial etc. in an earlier crime may get prolonged. The interpretation as suggested by the petitioner would enure to the benefit of an accused facing trial in another court and result in stay of proceedings in other courts. An unintended benefit/advantage to the accused would follow as by long lapse of time the evidence may fade away. Cr.P.C. is a procedural law and has to be read in a practical and pragmatic manner to make it meaningful and not as a procedure, which creates impediment or will cripple proceedings in other cases. Cr.P.C. does not postulate that proceedings will continue only in one case. The following observations of a single Judge of Allahabad High Court in Ranjeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, 1995 Cri.L.J. 3505, are apposite:-