# RAM NARAYAN SINGH v. THE s·rATE OF DELHI AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1953] 1 S.C.R. 652
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1953-03-06
- **Bench:** PATANJALr SAs1·nr C. J, MrKHER.TEA, S. R. DAs, Ghulam Hasan, Bhagwati
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-narayan-singh-v-the-s-rate-of-delhi-and-others-181
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

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 adjournment 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.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
653
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.presentation 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
1958
Riun. Narayan
Singh
v.
The State of
Delhi
an

## Text

1958
March 12
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(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 adjournment 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.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
653
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.presentation 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
1958
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.
654
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.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
655
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 scrupulously 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 servantAppointment 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 Directorate 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 fundamental 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
1968
Rani Narayan.
Singh
v •
Th• Stat• of
Delhi
and Othsr3.
Patanja.lS
Sa~tl'i 0. I.
1968
Mar•k la