Practice of warrant B and law relating to production warrant

By-

Vandana Singh Katiyar

Researcher & Advocate

Vijay Katiyar

Deputy Director

Judicial Training and Research

Institute, UP, Lucknow

Introduction-

Generally, the practice of Parcha talbi and warrant B is prevalent not only in the state of Uttar Pradesh but in the entire Country. Even though in the Code of Criminal Procedure there is a provision in respect of production warrant. Section-266 to 271 deals with the concept of the production warrant. It is pertinent to mention here that section-266 to 271 are not exhaustive in themselves but the provision of the Prisoners [Attendance In Courts] Act, 1955 and U.P. Prisoners Attendance in Courts Rules, 1956 are also very relevant for the proper discussion of the topic. The purpose of this article is to elaborate the consolidated concept of the production warrant and attendance of the prisoner before court.

Meaning of confined or detained and prison-

In the Code of Criminal procedure there is section-266 and section-2(a) of Prisoners [Attendance In Courts] Act, 1955 defined the terms confined or detained and prison as below-

266. Definitions.—In this Chapter,—

(a) “detained” includes detained under any law providing for preventive detention;

(b) “prison” includes,—

(i) any place which has been declared by the State Government, by general or special order, to be a subsidiary jail;

(ii) any reformatory, Borstal institution, or institution of a like nature.

2. Definitions. – In this Act, –

(a) “Confinement in a prison” – references to confinement in a prison, by whatever form of words, include references to confinement or detention in a prison under any law providing for preventive detention,

(b) “Prison” includes –

(i) any place which has been declared by the State Government, by general or special order, to be a subsidiary jail; or

(ii) any reformatory, borstal institution or other institution of a like nature;

A perusal of the different two sections it is quite clear that the term confined or detained includes any person detained under preventive detention also, it means that if any person detained in jail either under any offence or for prevention of any crime under any law in respect of preventive detention, comes within the purview of the definition of confined or detention. when we talk about confined or detained under any offence it means that such person either convicted for any offence or under trial for any offence.

After bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions in respect of jail, it includes -

1- Traditional jail which already running by the State or Central Government. or

2- Any place which has been declared by the State Government, by general or special order, to be a subsidiary jail; or

3- Any reformatory, borstal institution or other institution of a like nature;

Which Court is empowered to require the attendance of prisoners and for what purpose -

Before going to the further discussion on the topic it is pertinent to describe here the Court who is empowered to issue requisition to the jail authority for the production of the person who is detained in jail under any law. Section-267 of the Criminal Procedure Code and section-3 of the Prisoners [Attendance In Courts] Act, 1955 deal about this. these provisions are as below-

267. Power to require the attendance of prisoners.—(1) Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial, or proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court,—

(a) that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him, or

(b) that it is necessary for the ends of justice to examine such person as a witness, the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court answering to the charge or for the purpose of such proceeding or, as the case may be, for giving evidence.

(2) Where an order under sub-section (1) is made by a Magistrate of the second class, it shall not be forwarded to or acted upon by, the officer in charge of the prison unless it is countersigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, to whom such Magistrate is subordinate.

(3) Every order submitted for countersigning under sub-section (2) shall be accompanied by a statement of the facts which, in the opinion of the Magistrate, render the order necessary, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom it is submitted may, after considering such statement, decline to countersign the order.

3. Power of Courts, to require the appearance of prisoners to give evidence or answer a charge. –

(1) Any civil or criminal court may if it thinks that the evidence of any person confined in any prison is material in any matter pending before it makes an order in the form set forth in the First Schedule, directed to the officer-in-charge of the prison:

Provided that no civil court shall make an order under this subsection, in respect of a person confined in a prison situated outside the State in which the court is held.

(2) Any criminal court may if a charge of an offence against a person confined in any prison is made or pending before it, make an order in the form set forth in the Second Schedule, directed to the officer-in-charge of the prison.

(3) No order made under this section by a civil court which is subordinate to a District Judge shall have effect unless it is countersigned by the District Judge, and no order made under this section by

1 This Act extends to the Union Territories of Goa, Daman, and Diu by Regulation 11 of 1963 [w.e.f. 1st February 1964] and Pondicherry by Act 26 of 1963 [w.e.f. 1st March 1969]. 2 This Act came into force on 1st January 1956, vide notification No. S.R.O. 3447 dated the 8th November 1955, Gazette of India, 1955, Pt. II, Sec. 3, p.2229. 3 Substituted by A.L.O. [No. 3], 1956 [w.e.f. 1st November 1956]. a Criminal Court which is inferior to the Court of a Magistrate of the first class shall have effect unless it is countersigned by the District Magistrate to whom that court is subordinate or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such Court is situated.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a Court of Small Causes outside a Presidency-town or city of Hyderabad shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such Court is situated. substitute respectively “Judicial Magistrate of the first class” and “Chief Judicial Magistrate”.

The plain reading of the section-267 of Cr.P.C. and section-3 of the Prisoners [Attendance In Courts] Act, 1955, it is clear that courts who has empowered to issue requisition to jail authority for production of person who is detained in the jail are Criminal courts, Civil courts, and JSCC Courts. It is also kept in mind that the Hon'ble Supreme court and High Courts also come within the purview of the definition of the courts. In the code of Criminal Procedure, only the Criminal court is empowered to send requisition for the production of a person who is detained in jail, But in the Prisoners [Attendance In Courts] Act, 1955 Civil courts and JSCC courts are empowered as well as criminal courts. with the conjoint reading of both provisions, it is clear that criminal court, civil court, and jscc court are empowered to issue requisition for production of the warrant against a person who is detained in jail.

Another question before us that for what purposes requisition of a production warrant can be issued? the plain reading of both provisions it is quite clear that for the three purposes requisition for production warrant may be issued these are as follows-

1- For answering any charge.

2- For purpose of any proceeding.

3- For the examination as a witness.

The criminal court can issue requisition to jail authority for the purpose of answering any charge or for purpose of any proceeding or for the examination as a witness. While Civil and JSCC Court may issue requisition to the jail authority for the purpose of any proceeding or for the purpose of examination as a witness.

If any such order has been passed by a Magistrate of the second class, it shall not be forwarded to or acted upon by, the Officer In-charge of the prison unless it is countersigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom such Magistrate is subordinate. It is pertinent to mention here before 1973 under Cr.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate was the subordinate of the District Magistrate, but after the amendment of 1973, the Judicial Magistrate will have subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Even though in section 3 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 authority for countersigned is used as District Magistrate in respect of Magistrate of second class. In 1973 the amendment has been inserted in Cr.P.C. Hence it is very clear that if the acquisition has been made by the second class Magistrate then it must be countersigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It means that if an acquisition for production warrant has been issued by a Magistrate who is holding the authority of the first-class Magistrate then there is no need for countersigning.

In the case of Civil or JSCC Court, if any requisition for production warrant for any prison has been issued then it must be countersigned by the District Judge concerned. But it must be kept in mind Civil Courts or JSCC Courts can not make an order in respect of a person confined in a prison situated outside the state.

It is very important to mention here that the production warrant should be issued according to the proforma attached in schedules I and II of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955.

The next question before us in what manner to obtain the countersignature of an order or requisition for a production warrant. The Section 267 Cr.P.C. and Section 3 Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 provides requirement about countersigning by the authority concerned. The procedure in this respect has been laid down in rule 3 UP Prisoners attendance in Courts Rules 1956, these are as follows:-

3- Procedure for obtaining countersignature of an order under Section 3.- Every order submitted to the District Magistrate or the District Judge for counter-signature under sub-section (3) of Section 3 shall be accompanied by a statement under the hand of the Presiding Officer of the subordinate court of the facts which in his opinion render the order necessary and the District Magistrate or the District Judge, as the case may be, may, after considering such statement, countersign the order or decline to countersign it.

It must be kept in the mind countersigning authority has the discretion to countersign or decline to countersign.

Power of State Government to exclude certain person from the operation of production Warrant.

The power under Section 267 of Cr.P.C. and Section 3 Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 is not absolute power of the Court but it is under certain restrictions. Section 268 of the CrPC and Section 4 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 empowered the state government to make general or special orders, direct that any person or class of persons shall not be removed from the prison in which he or they may be confined or detained and thereupon, so long as the order remains in force, no order made under section 267, whether before or after the order of the state government, shall have effect in respect of such person or class of persons. The state government can make an order on the basis of nature of offence, disturbance of public order, and public interest generally. The Provisions mentioned above are as follows:-

268. Power of State Government to exclude certain persons from the operation of section 267.—(1) The State Government may, at any time, having regard to the matters specified in sub-section (2), by general or special order, direct that any person or class of persons shall not be removed from the prison in which he or they may be confined or detained, and thereupon, so long as the order remains in force, no order made under section 267, whether before or after the order of the State Government, shall have effect in respect of such person or class of persons.

(2) Before making an order under sub-section (1), the State Government shall have regard to the following matters, namely:—

(a) the nature of the offence for which, or the grounds on which, the person or class of persons has been ordered to be confined or detained in prison;

(b) the likelihood of the disturbance of public order if the person or class of persons is allowed to be removed from the prison;

4. Power of State Government to exempt certain persons from the operation of Section 3. – (1)

The State Government may, having regard to the matters specified in sub-section (2), by general or special order, direct that any person or class of persons shall not be removed from the prison in which he or they may be confined, and thereupon so long as any such order remains in force, the provisions of Section 3 shall not apply to such person or class of persons.

(2) Before making an order under sub-section (1), the State Government shall have regard to the following matters, namely:

a) the nature of the offence for which or the grounds on which the confinement has been ordered in respect of the person or class of persons;

b) the likelihood of the disturbance of public order if the person or class of persons is allowed to be removed from the prison;

c) the public interest, generally.

It is quite clear for the perusal of the above provisions, the government has empowered to make orders for that person confined in prison unfit to be removed. On the basis of section 268 of CrPC and Section 4 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955, The UP State has framed UP Prisoners Attendance in Courts Rules, 1956 in which rule 4 has inserted and the authority of state government has been conferred to the District Magistrate in which local jurisdiction the prison has been situated. Rule 4 is as follows:-

4- How a declaration that a person confined in prison unfit to be removed is to be made.- Where the person named in any order made under Section 3 appears to be unfit to be removed for reasons given in Section 6, the Superintendent of Prison in which he is confined shall apply to the District Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the prison is situated, and if such Magistrate by writing under his hand, declares himself to be of opinion that the person, named in the order is unfit to be removed for reason mentioned in Section 6, the Superintendent of the Prison may abstain from carrying out the order and shall send to the court from which the orders had been issued a statement of reasons for so abstaining.

Duty of the Jail Authority -

Section 269 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 5 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 deal with the duty of the Jail Authorities. These two sections describe when any requisition for production of prisoner received, what should we do by the Jail authority. Before going to detailed description it is necessary to quote the above provisions firstly

269. Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out order in certain contingencies.—Where the person in respect of whom an order is made under section 267—

(a) is by reason of sickness or infirmity unfit to be removed from the prison; or

(b) is under committal for trial or under remand pending trial or pending a preliminary investigation; or

(c) is in custody for a period which would expire before the expiration of the time required for complying with the order and for taking him back to the prison in which he is confined or detained; or

(d) is a person to whom an order made by the State Government under section 268 applies, the officer in charge of the prison shall abstain from carrying out the Court's order and shall send to the Court a statement of reasons for so abstaining:

Provided that where the attendance of such person is required for giving evidence at a place not more than twenty-five kilometers distance from the prison, the officer in charge of the prison shall not so abstain for the reason mentioned in clause (b).

5. Prisoners to be brought up. – Upon delivery of any order made under Section 3 to the officer-in-charge of the prison in which the person named therein confined, that officer shall cause him to be taken to the Court in which his attendance is required, so as to be present in the Court at the time in such order mentioned, and shall cause him to be detained in custody in or near the Court until he has been examined or until the Judge or presidency officer of the Court authorizes him to be taken back to the prison in which he was confined.

A bare reading of both provisions it is clear that the jail superintendent generally after receiving the order of production warrant, would send the prisoner to the court concerned with proper security prescribed in up prisoners attendance in courts rules-1956. If the jail authority found that due to reasons mentioned in section 269 (a) to (d) the prisoner can not be produced before the court concerned then the statement of reasons would be sent to the respective court of law.

Whether mere issuance of production warrant is deemed to be judicial custody-

The answer is negative, it means that mere requisition for warrant B can not be equated with section-167 or 209 or 309. It is also to be kept in mind that mere issuance of requisition of production warrant of any prisoner does not mean that a particular prisoner is in the custody of the court. it means that the jail authorities are not always bound to produce the prisoner before court. If the jail authorities send the statement of reasons for not producing the prisoner and such statement based on section section-269 Cr.P.C. then the court can not compel the jail authority to produce a particular prisoner. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohd. Daud vs jail superintendent Moradabad, 1993 Cr.LJ 1358 Allahabad. held that

50. Taking up first the submission of the petitioner based on Section 267 of the Cr. P.C. that a warrant issued under the said section does not constitute a detention order authorizing detention in. prison of a person, it would be found that it is fully borne out from the provisions of Section 267 itself. The head-note, as well as the phraseology of the said section, indicates that the order envisaged therein is an order to produce a person confined or detained in a prison before a criminal court for answering to a charge or for the purpose of any proceedings against him. An order under this section does not partake the character of a detention order by the court seeking production qua the charge of the proceedings pending before it. This view finds support also from the principles laid down in Dharampal v. State of U.P. 1982 All WC 13 : (1982 All LJ 130) and Pramod Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (reported in Allahabad Band Nirnaya 108). In fact, before us, the learned counsel for the respondents has also not taken the stand of a warrant under Section 267 to be a warrant of detention. He, on the other hand, relies on what he claims to be an order of remand validly passed under Section 309 of the Cr. P.C. by the Special Judge, Moradabad and this brings us to one of the main questions in issue between the parties.

In the cases of below has retrieted the concept which has been pronounced in the case of Mohd Daud vs State of UP, these are as follows-

1- Pramod Kumar vs State of UP, 1991 Cr.LJ 1063 Allahabad.

2- Pawan Kumar Pandey vs State of UP,1997 Cr.LJ 2686 Allahabad.

3- Sudama Uraon vs State of UP, Criminal appeal No-1973/2019 judgment dated 06/12/2019.

What happened if the production warrant expired-

Another question before readers is if any person has been detained in jail in respect of some offence, in the same time warrant B has been issued by another court either inside the state or outside the state, the accused or detenu has not been produced in the court in the furtherance of such warrant B and the date for the production of the accused fixed in the production warrant has expired, the accused shall be released from the custody; The production warrant would not be treated as custody warrant within the ambit of section-167 Cr.P.C. It means that if such accused has been Bailout or acquitted by the former court and the date of the production warrant of the subsequent court has expired then such shall be released from the custody, if jail authority has not been released the same, then such custody would be illegal because mere issuance of production warrant, it can not be presumed judicial custody. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Nabbu vs State of UP, 2006 (3) ALJ 277 Allhabad. held in below paras-

14. In these circumstances, respondent no.2 is bound to comply with the order of courts A.C.J.M. Hapur (Ghaziabad) and G.J.M. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) if the date of appearance of production has not been expired or the date has not been mentioned in the said 'B' warrant. In such circumstances, such order of production warrant shall comply, it is important to note here that it is the duty of Superintendent, District Jail to submit a report to the court concerned whereupon the said requisition comes to an end. However, the presence of the petitioner is still required by the said court, the requisite court will have to issue a fresh requisition under Section 3 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Court) Act, 1955 and Section 267 Cr.P.C. requiting the Officer-in-Charge of the prison to produce the prisoner before it on some other date to be nominated by it. The date mentioned in the requisition issued by the said court to produce a prisoner has expired. Thereafter, no other obligation remains upon the Officer-in-Charge of the prison to produce the prisoner before that court on any other date. In the circumstances in no case, a requisition issued by a criminal court under Section 3 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) and Section 267(1) Cr.P.C. even be construed as authorizing the Officer-in-Charge of the prison to keep a person under detention after the date mentioned in the requisition has expired and he has made a report to the concerned court stating the reason for his omission to comply with the requisition.

15. In the present case no date in production warrant has been mentioned by the court of A.C.J.M. Hapur (Ghaziabad). Therefore, it is effective, and the same is to be complied with by respondent no.2. So far as the production warrant of the court of C.J.M. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) is concerned wherein the date of production of the accused was mentioned and the same has already been expired. There is no material on record before us that any fresh production warrant has also been received from the said court by respondent No. 2. In absence of issuance of a fresh production warrant by the court of C.J.M Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), the petitioner cannot be detained in the said previous production warrant whose date has already been expired.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attracted my attention to the pronouncement of Dharam Pal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. 1981 Allahabad Criminal Ruling 466, wherein it has been observed that:-

Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955, Sections 3(2), 6 Prisons Act, 1894, Section 55 Prisoners Act, 1900, Section 3 Criminal P.C., 1973, Sections 267, 269 Construction of-Petitioners detained in Jail at Meerut were directed to be released on bail-Bail order received by Jailor-No authority remains in him to keep them in custody-Requisition received from Criminal Courts at Haryana under Section 3 of 1955 Act and Section 267 Cr.P.C. cannot confer any valid authority to keep them under detention.

17. The above pronouncement of this Court is not applicable in the present case as the date of production warrant has expired only one production warrant which was issued by the C.J.M. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), but no time limit has been given in production warrant issued by the A.C.J.M. Hapur (Ghaziabad) regarding the above case. In such circumstances, respondent No. 2 is bound to comply with the order of the production warrant after releasing him from the cases of District Bulandshahar.

18. Thus, the writ petition is, hereby, disposed of accordingly.

Whether for the purpose of investigation warrant B can be issued-

the answer is affirmative because warrant B can be issued for the purpose of answering the charge or for the purpose of any proceeding or for the purpose of examination as a witness. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Caterina of judgments. see the case laws given below-

1- Ranjeet Singh vs State of UP, 1995 Cr.LJ 3305 Allahabad.

2- Bobby Alias Premveer And Anr. vs State Of U.P, 2000 Cri.LJ 4125 Allahabad.

Whether the time of custody during the issuance of warrant B and actual production of accused can be set off in the imprisonment awarded -

The next question before us that if an accused has been summoned through warrant B, the time during the issuance of warrant B and actual production of the accused can be set off in the imprisonment awarded by the court who has issued such warrant B. The answer is negative because the period above mentioned has not come within the ambit of judicial custody, hence such period can not be set off in the imprisonment which has been awarded by the court concerned. In the case of Sudama Uraon vs State of UP, judgment dated 06/12/2019 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court laid down the principle in para as given below-

22. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that mere issuing of production warrant by any Court to in charge of any prison u/s 267 of the Code, to produce any person before such Court, does not amount to detention or custody. The period of detention in another criminal case prior to the actual production of such person before the Court in compliance of production warrant issued u/s 267 of the Code, and the period during which such convicted person was transferred to another prison, in compliance of another production warrant issued by another Court, would be excluded from the counting of a period of sentence awarded to the convicted accused. Thus, in view of section 428 read with Section 427 of the Code, the period of detention in another criminal case in another prison shall not be treated as detention in the same case.

23. In view of the above discussion I am of the view that the period of detention of appellant, while he was detained in district jail, Sasaram, Bihar, District Jail, Gharhwa, Jharkhand in connection with the other criminal cases of those States, cannot be allowed to set off against the sentence awarded by the Trial Court in Special S.T. No. 553 of 2012 (State Vs. Sudama Uraon) u/s 3(1) of Act, P.S. Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra, wherein appellant has been sentenced for 3 years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-. The impugned judgment and order passed in the aforesaid cases are legal and justified. It requires no interference.

Whether Bail application is maintainable mere issuance of production warrant -

Now the question before us if any court has issued a production warrant but the accused actually not produced the same, whether in that case, the Bail application can be entertained or not, by the court who has issued such warrant B . Answer is negative because it is well established that mere issuance of warrant can not be deemed to be judicial custody of such court, for the maintainability of Bail application it is mandated that the accused must be in the judicial custody of that court in which particular Bail application is pending. It means that Bail application is not maintainable before such court.

Pramod Kumar vs State of UP, 1991 Cr.LJ 1063 Allahabad. In this case, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court recognized the above-mentioned fact, in this case even CMM Kanpur has taken a further step and given the first remand of the IO of Agra in the respect of JM Agra but the accused has not been produced before the court of Agra for the further remand. In this case, JM Agra even has been issued warrant B but accused not produced by the jail Authority of Kanpur. the JM Agra has rightly rejected the bail application on the ground that the accused is not in the judicial custody of that court. Hon'ble High court affirmed the order and enunciated as below-

11. Now it has to be seen as to what is the effect of remand taken by Agra police from the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar under Section 167 of the Code. Of course, under the said provision, a Magistrate having no jurisdiction could not grant successive remands. In compliance with of-the first remand order if the accused had been produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, then he could alone take the accused in custody in the criminal case of his jurisdiction and remand him to judicial custody. Only thereafter the accused could be said to be in the custody of the said Court. Prior to that, he could not be deemed to be in the custody of that Court.

12. Not only that even if the first remand order was made by the Court having no jurisdiction, the accused should have been produced before the competent Magistrate, but if he was not so produced, the first remand would become meaningless. In the instant case, if the applicant had been transferred to Agra in compliance of the requisition or the first remand order and the Agra Magistrate had remanded him to judicial custody in the Agra crime case, then alone the applicant could be said to be in the' custody of Agra case. Learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance in Dharampal v. State of U. P., (1982 (19) ACC Page 98) in which it has been observed:

"...........the requisition under Section 3(2) of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 and Section 267(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be addressed to Superintendent of a District Jail who is already holding a prisoner under the authority of law. The requisition by itself does not authorize the detention of any person. It merely requires the Officer-in-Charge of the prison (1) to produce the detenu before the requisitioning Court on the date fixed by it and (2) after the purpose of requisition is over, to take him back and to keep him in custody in accordance with the writ or direction issued by the Court which had authorized his detention in jail."

13. In this case, a photocopy of the requisition issued by the Judicial Magistrate, III (L.C.C.) The court, Agra (Annexure 2 to the application) has been filed. No doubt, it has not been printed correctly but it is the same requisition as mentioned in Schedule II of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 and Form 36 of Schedule II prepared under Section 267 of the Code.

14. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order rejecting the application has rightly remarked that once a requisition for transfer of the applicant from Kanpur Jail to Agra was issued by the Court concerned, it was meaningless for the police of Agra to seek remand under Section 167 of the Code from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. Therefore, after careful consideration of the aforesaid legal position, there remains no doubt that the applicant was not in the custody of Crime NO. 166 of 1989 under Sections 147/148/149/307/302, I.P.C. of Police Station Etmadpur district Agra. As the applicant was not in the custody in that criminal case, the courts at Agra had no jurisdiction to release him on bail. The bail application was rightly held to be premature by the Additional Sessions Judge. The present bail application relating to the aforesaid crime case of Agra is also held to be premature and is accordingly rejected.

One more important thing also kept in the mind that suppose if any first remand has been done by a magistrate after requisition of production warrant, through video conferencing in respect of that person who is already detained in jail in the jurisdiction of another magistrate either outside the district or outside the state, then what will you do? Section-167 (2) proviso (b) provides that the first remand ( police or judicial remand) of the accused can not be granted by video conferencing but latter remand may be granted through video conferencing but in the period of COVID-19 there is no practical possibility to grant physical remand for the redressal of such circumstances the Government of up with help of Hon'ble High Court notified rules called "Rules for video conferencing for courts in the state of Uttar Pradesh, 2020". The rule-11 is closely concerned with this extraordinary situation and this rule provides that even the first remand in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing may be granted by video conferencing. these rules are as follows-

11. Judicial remand, framing of charge, examination of accused, and Proceedings under Section 164 of the CrPC

11.1 The Court may, at its discretion, authorize the detention of an accused, frame charges in a criminal trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 through video conferencing. However, ordinarily judicial remand in the first instance or police remand shall not be granted through video conferencing save and except in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing.

11.2 The Court may, in exceptional circumstances, for reasons to be recorded in writing, examine a witness or an accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or record the statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 through video conferencing, while observing all due precautions to ensure that the witness or the accused as the case may be, is free of any form of coercion, threat or undue influence. The Court shall ensure compliance with Section 26 of the Evidence Act.

What is the distinction between sec- 267 and 167, 209 and 309 Cr.P.C.-

It is well established that the requisition which has been made under section-267 is only a request to jail authority for the production of the accused. While under section-167, 209 & 309 if any order has been passed by the court such order would be in the nature of judicial custody. the order which has passed under section-267 may have resulted within the ambit of 167 or 209 or 309. If the accused is on bail in a particular offence in which respect the production warrant has issued then custody warrant would not be made but through parcha talbi means in each requisition should be an issue the same. If in that situation if accused is acquitted or bail out in other offence then the accused should be automatically released.

Relevant provisions in respect of production of warrant and handcuffing etc.-

CHAPTER XXII Cr.P.C.
ATTENDANCE OF PERSONS CONFINED OR DETAINED IN PRISONS-

266. Definitions.—In this Chapter,—

(a) “detained” includes detained under any law providing for preventive detention;

(b) “prison” includes,—

(i) any place which has been declared by the State Government, by general or special order, to be a subsidiary jail;

(ii) any reformatory, Borstal institution, or institution of a like nature.

267. Power to require the attendance of prisoners.—(1) Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial, or

proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court,—

(a) that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him, or

(2) Where an order under sub-section (1) is made by a Magistrate of the second class, it shall not be forwarded

to or acted upon by, the officer in charge of the prison unless it is countersigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, to whom such Magistrate is subordinate.

(3) Every order submitted for countersigning under sub-section (2) shall be accompanied by a statement of the

facts which, in the opinion of the Magistrate, render the order necessary, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom it is submitted may, after considering such statement, decline to countersign the order.

268. Power of State Government to exclude certain persons from the operation of section 267.—(1) The State

The government may, at any time, having regard to the matters specified in sub-section (2), by general or special order, direct that any person or class of persons shall not be removed from the prison in which he or they may be confined or detained, and thereupon, so long as the order remains in force, no order made under section 267, whether before or after the order of the State Government, shall have effect in respect of such person or class of persons.

(2) Before making an order under sub-section (1), the State Government shall have regard to the following matters, namely:—

(a) the nature of the offence for which, or the grounds on which, the person or class of persons has been ordered to be confined or detained in prison;

(b) the likelihood of the disturbance of public order if the person or class of persons is allowed to be removed from the prison;

269. Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out order in certain contingencies.—Where the person in respect of whom an order is made under section 267—

(a) is by reason of sickness or infirmity unfit to be removed from the prison; or

(b) is under committal for trial or under remand pending trial or pending a preliminary investigation; or

(c) is in custody for a period which would expire before the expiration of the time required for complying with the order and for taking him back to the prison in which he is confined or detained; or

Provided that where the attendance of such person is required for giving evidence at a place not more than twenty-five kilometres distance from the prison, the officer in charge of the prison shall not so abstain for the reason mentioned in clause (b).

270. Prisoner to be brought to Court in custody.—Subject to the provisions of section 269, the officer in charge of the prison shall, upon delivery of an order made under sub-section (1) of section 267 and duly countersigned, where necessary, under sub-section (2) thereof, cause the person named in the order to be taken to the Court in which his attendance is required, so as to be present there at the time mentioned in the order, and shall cause him to be kept in custody in or near the Court until he has been examined or until the Court authorizes him to be taken back to the prison in which he was confined or detained.

271. Power to issue commission for examination of witness in prison.—The provisions of this Chapter shall be without prejudice to the power of the Court to issue, under section 284, a commission for the examination, as a witness, of any person confined or detained in a prison; and the provisions of Part B of Chapter XXIII shall apply in relation to the examination on commission of any such person in the prison as they apply in relation to the examination on commission of any other person.

Prisoners [Attendance In Courts] Act [1955]

An Act to provide for the attendance in courts of persons confined in prisons for obtaining their evidence or for answering criminal charge. [20th September 1955] Be it enacted by Parliament in the Sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:

1. Short title, extent, and commencement. – (1) This Act may be called the Prisoners [Attendance

in Courts] Act, 1955.

(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir1

(3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.

2. Definitions. – In this Act, –

(b) “Prison” includes –

(i) any place which has been declared by the State Government, by general or special order, to be a subsidiary jail; or

(ii) any reformatory, borstal institution or other institution of a like nature;

3. Power of Courts, to require appearance of prisoners to give evidence or answer a charge. –

(1) Any civil or criminal court may, if it thinks that the evidence of any person confined in any prison is material in any matter pending before it make an order in the form set forth in the First Schedule, directed to the officer-in-charge of the prison:

Provided that no civil court shall make an order under this sub-section, in respect of a person confined in a prison situated outside the State in which the court is held.

(2) Any criminal court may, if a charge of an offence against a person confined in any prison is made or pending before it, make an order in the form set forth in the Second Schedule, directed to the officer-in-charge of the prison.

1 This Act extends to the Union Territories of Goa, Daman and Diu by Regulation 11 of 1963 [w.e.f. 1st February 1964] and Pondicherry by Act 26 of 1963 [w.e.f. 1st March, 1969]. 2 This Act came into force on 1st January, 1956, vide notification No. S.R.O. 3447 dated the 8th November, 1955, Gazette

of India, 1955, Pt. II, Sec. 3, p.2229. 3 Substituted by A.L.O. [No. 3], 1956 [w.e.f. 1st November 1956]. a Criminal Court which is inferior to the Court of a Magistrate of the first class shall have effect unless it is countersigned by the District Magistrate to whom that court is subordinate or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such Court is situate.

(4) For the purposes of sub-section (3), a Court of Small Causes outside a Presidency-town or city of Hyderabad shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Judge within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such Court is situated. substitute respectively “Judicial Magistrate of the first class” and “Chief Judicial Magistrate”.4

4. Power of State Government to exempt certain persons from the operation of Section 3. – (1)

(2) Before making an order under sub-section (1), the State Government shall have regard to the following matters, namely:

a) the nature of the offence for which or the grounds on which the confinement has been ordered in respect of the person or class of persons;

b) the likelihood of the disturbance of public order if the person or class of persons is allowed to be removed from the prison;

c) the public interest, generally.

5. Prisoners to be brought up. – Upon delivery of any order made under Section 3 to the officer-in-charge of the prison in which the person named there in confined, that officer shall cause him to be taken to the Court in which his attendance is required, so as to be present in the Court at the time in such order mentioned, and shall cause him to be detained in custody in or near the Court until he has been examined or until the Judge or presidency officer of the Court authorizes him to be taken back to the prison in which he was confined.

6. Officer-in-charge of prison when to abstain from carrying out order. – Where the person in respect of whom an order is made under Section 3 –

(a) is, in accordance with the rules made in this behalf, declared to be unfit to be removed from the prison where he is confined by reason of sickness or another infirmity; or

(b) is under committal for trial; or

(d) is in custody for a period, which would expire before the expiration of the time required for removing him under this Act and for taking him back to the prison in which he is which he is confined, the officer-in-charge of the prison shall abstain from carrying out the order and shall send to the Court from which the order had been issued a statement of reasons for so abstaining:

Provided that such officer as aforesaid shall not so abstain where –

(i) the order has been made by a Criminal Court; and

(ii) the person named in the order is confined under committal for trial or under remand pending trial or pending a preliminary investigation and is not declared in accordance with the rules made in this behalf to be unfit to be removed from the prison where he is confined by reason of sickness or another infirmity; and

(iii) the place, where the evidence of the person named in the order is required, is not more than five miles distant from the prison in which he is confined.

7. Commissions for examination of prisoners. – In any of the following cases that are to say, –

(a) where it appears to any Civil Court that the evidence of a person confined in a prison is material in any matter pending before it and that the attendance of such person in Court cannot be secured by reason of the provisions of Section 6 or of an order under Section 4 of the District Judge declining under sub-section (3) of Section 3 to countersign an order for removal; or

(b) where it appears to any Civil Court as aforesaid that the evidence of a person confined in a prison, which is situated outside the State in which, or is more than fifty miles distant from the place at which, such court is held is material in any such matter, the Court may, if it thinks fit, issue a commission under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the examination of the person in the prison in which he is confined.

8. Certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure to apply. – Save as otherwise provided in this Act and any rules made thereunder, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the 5 [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898] as the case may be, shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the examination on commission or otherwise of any person confined in a prison as they apply in relation to the examination on commission of any other person.

9. Power to make rules. – (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may provide for –

a) the procedure for obtaining the counter signature of an order made under Section 3;

b) the authority by whom and the manner in which a declaration that a person confined in prison is unfit to be removed therefrom may be made;

c) the conditions, including payment of costs and charges, subject to which an order made under Section 3 by a Civil Court may be executed;

d) the manner in which a process directed against any person confined in a prison-issued from any

the court may be served upon him;

e) the escort of persons confined in a prison to and from courts in which their attendance is required and for their custody during the period of such attendance;

5 Now the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [2 of 1974].

f) the amount to be allowed for the costs and charges of such enforcement of this Act;

g) the guidance of officers in all other matters connected with the enforcement of this Act.

10. Repeal. – (1) Part IX of the Prisoners Act, 1900 and the First and Second Schedules to the said Act are hereby repealed.

(2) If immediately before the commencement of this Act, there is in force in any part B State to which this Act extends any law corresponding to the provisions of this Act, that law shall, in so far as it relates to matter dealt with in this Act, stand repealed on such commencement: Provided that anything done or any action taken under any such law shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall continue to have effect accordingly, unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under this Act.

The First Schedule

[See sub-section [1] of Section 3]

Court of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To the officer-in-charge of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [State name of prison]

You are hereby required to produce, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., now confined in . . . . . . . . . . . . . under

safe and sure conduct before the Court of . . . . . . . . . . . . . at . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., on the . . . . . . . . . . . . .

day of………………… next by . . . . . . . . . . . . . of the clock in the forenoon of the same day, there

to give evidence in a matter now pending before the said Court, and after the said . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . has then and there given his evidence before the said Court or the said Court has

dispensed with his further attendance, cause him to be conveyed under safe and sure conduct back

to the prison.

The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . day of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A.B.

[Countersigned] C.D.

The Second Schedule

[See sub-section (2) of Section 3]

Court of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To the officer-in-charge of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [State name of prison]

You are hereby required to produce, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., now confined in . . . . . . . . . . . . . under

safe and sure conduct before the Court of . . . . . . . . . . . . . at . . . . . . . . . . . ., on the . . . . . . . . . . . day

of . . . . . . . . next by . . . . . . . . . . of the clock in the forenoon of the same day, there to answer a

charge now pending before the said court, and after such charge has been disposed of or the said

Court has dispensed with his further attendance, cause him to be conveyed under safe and sure

conduct back to the prison.

The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . day of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A.B.

[Countersigned] C.D.

U.P. Prisoners Attendance in Courts Rules, 1956

Published vide Notification No. 4764/22-841-1955, dated 28th December 1955 up769

1-These rules may be called the Uttar Pradesh Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Rules, 1956, and shall come into force from January 1, 1956.

2-In these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context-

(i) the 'Act' means the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955;

(ii) the 'Superintendent of Prison' means the officer-in-charge of prison; and

(iii) the 'State Government' means the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

3- Procedure for obtaining counter signature of an order under Section 3.- Every order submitted to the District Magistrate or the District Judge for counter-signature under sub-section (3) of Section 3 shall be accompanied by a statement under the hand of the Presiding Officer of the subordinate court of the facts which in his opinion render the order necessary and the District Magistrate or the District Judge, as the case may be, may, after considering such statement, countersign the order or decline to countersign it.

4- How a declaration that a person confined in prison unfit to be removed is to be made.- Where the person named in any order made under Section 3 appears to be unfit to be removed for reasons given in Section 6, the Superintendent of Prison in which he is confined shall apply to the District Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the prison is situate, and if such Magistrate by writing under his hand, declares himself to be of opinion that the person, named in the order is unfit to be removed for reason mentioned in Section 6, the Superintendent of the Prison may abstain from carrying out the order and shall send to the court from which the orders had been issued a statement of reasons for so abstaining.

5- How a process is to be served on a prisoner.- When any process directed to any person confined in any prison is issued from any criminal or civil court, it may be served by exhibiting to the Superintendent of Prison the original of the process and deposing with him a copy thereof.

6- Process served to be transmitted at the prisoner's request.- (1) Every Superintendent of Prison upon whom service is made under rules shall, as soon as may be, cause a copy of the process deposited with him to be shown and explained to the person to whom it is directed, and shall thereupon make an endorsement on the process and sign a certificate to the effect that such person as aforesaid is confined in the prison under his charge and that he has been shown and explained the contents of the process.

(2) Such certificate as aforesaid shall be prima facie evidence of the service of the process, and if the person to whom the process is directed, requests that the copy shown and explained to him be sent to any other person and provides the cost of sending it by post, the Superintendent of Prison shall cause it to be so sent.

7- Procedure for regulating the escort of prisoners to and from courts in which their attendance is required and for their custody during the period of such attendance.- The duty of escorting prisoners to and from the court in which their attendance is required shall be performed by the Police.

8- The strength of the escort shall be as follows on ordinary occasions:

Strength

Number of Prisoners Head Constables Constables

1 to 3 prisoners ... ... ... 2

4 to 6 prisoners ... ... ... 3

7 to 10 prisoners ... ... 1 4

11 to 15 prisoners ... ... 2 5

16 to 25 prisoners ... ... 2 8

26 to 50 prisoners ... ... 3 10

Provided that when under trial prisoners are excused from wearing hand cuffs the strength of their escort shall be two constables for each under trial prisoner with head constables as in the scale above except for journeys made in police vans when the usual strength of escort may suffice :

Provided further that where an escort is required of a notorious criminal, a special guard as may be prescribed shall be supplied.

9- In escorting prisoners by road the escort commander shall -

(1) keep all prisoners under his charge together in one compact body;

(2) place all police under his charge in order at a distance of at least five paces from the prisoners on each flank and place himself and half the force in the rear;

(3) never travel at night unless absolutely necessary and previously authorized; and

(4) regulate marches so as, if possible, to locate prisoners at night in a lock-up or in the interior of a police station or other place of security.

10- The handcuffing and fettering of convicted prisoners and under-trial prisoners while traveling by rail or road shall be regulated as below :

A-Convicted Prisoners

(a) Handcuffs.-Handcuffs shall be imposed on convicted prisoners when traveling by rail or road as below :

(1) Male prisoners in the superior class, who have been sentenced to more than two years' rigorous imprisonment, shall be handcuffed.

(2) Other prisoners in the superior class shall not be handcuffed unless the Superintendent of Police for special reasons, to be recorded in writing orders otherwise.

(3) Male prisoners in the ordinary class shall ordinarily be handcuffed.

(4) Female prisoners shall not be handcuffed unless it is essential to prevent escape, violence, or suicide; where handcuffs are imposed on such prisoners, reasons therefor shall be recorded in writing by the Senior Police Officer at headquarters :

Provided that any general or special order issued by State Government from time to time in regard to the handcuffing of any particular prisoner or class of prisoners shall be followed.

(b) Fetters. - (1) Convicts in the superior class who have been sentenced to not more than two years rigorous imprisonment, shall, when traveling by rail or road, wear neither fetters nor cross-bars unless the Superintendent of Police for special reasons, to be recorded in writing, requires the imposition of the either-or the both. Such prisoners may be allowed to wear their own clothes in transit if they so desire.

(2) When travelling by rail or road other convicts when convicted of any of the offences specified below shall wear fetters and, if considered necessary either by the Superintendent of Jail or the Superintendent of Police, cross-bars also. Offences punishable under Sections 224, 225-B, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 392 to 402, Indian Penal Code.

(3) Female prisoners shall not wear fetters or cross-bars.

(4) The Superintendent of Jail in applying for the Police escort shall enter in the requisition from the name, offence, sentence, and classification of any convict whom he does not propose to fetter and who has been allowed to wear private clothes.

B-Undertrial Prisoners

(1) In the case of undertrial prisoners requisitioned by the police for attendance in court or before a Magistrate or under the authority of a competent Magistrate for any other purpose the responsibility for deciding as to which undertrial prisoners are to be handcuffed or fettered or both, and for seeing that the decision is carried out shall rest with police authorities :

Provided that undertrial prisoners charged with offences shown in the following Schedule shall not be handcuffed when in transit by rail or road or from or to courts there is reasonable ground for apprehending escape-violence or suicide and where possible, the orders of the Superintendent of Police or of any other Senior Police Officer at the headquarters have been taken with the reasons for imposing handcuffs :

Provided further that all undertrial prisoners charged with offences other than those specified below shall be handcuffed when in transit if there is reasonable ground for apprehension that handcuffs are necessary to prevent escape, violence, or suicide :

Provided further that any general or special orders issued by the State Government from time to time in regard to the handcuffing of any particular prisoner or class of prisoners shall be followed.

Indian Penal Code.-Chapters V-A, VI, and VIII, Sections 153-A to 160, Chapter IX except Sections 170 and 171, Chapters IX-A and X, Chapter XI except for Sections 216-A, 224, 225, 225-B and 226, Chapters XIII, XIV and XV, Sections 312 to 316,323, 334 to 338, 341 to 352, 355 to 358, 384 to 389, 403, 404,421 to 434, 447 and 448, Chapters XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI and XXII, all non-cognizable offences.

Code of Criminal Procedure.-Persons against whom proceedings under Section 108 are in progress.

Other Acts.-All non-cognizable offences.

(2) All undertrial prisoners handcuffed shall, as far as possible, be kept separate from those not handcuffed when escorted to and from jail.

(3) In court, handcuffs of undertrials shall invariably be taken off unless the presiding officer directs otherwise.

(4) In the case of undertrial prisoner charged with murder, fetters shall not. be imposed when in transit to courts at the headquarters of the District, unless the prisoner concerned is also charged with some other crime of violence, or is known to be a dangerous or hardened criminal.

(5) Fetters shall not be imposed on undertrial prisoners in transit, except in the case of those charged with murder or dacoity and unless there are special reasons for doing so, to be recorded in writing by the Senior Police Officer at headquarters.

(6) Female undertrial prisoners shall not be handcuffed unless it is essential to prevent escape, violence of suicide, where handcuffs are imposed, reasons therefor shall be recorded in writing by the Senior Police Officer at headquarters.

11- The public prosecutor shall arrange for the production of undertrial prisoners before courts on the proper dates, and for their safe escort to and from the courts. When the attendance of undertrial prisoners is required at courts he shall send to the Superintendent of Jail concerned a list of such prisoners and shall give clear directions on the list as to which prisoners are in his opinion to be handcuffed or fettered or both, and whether cross-bars are also necessary in any case. The public prosecutor shall also determine the strength of the escort with reference to the scale given in Rule 8 above and with due regard to the character of the prisoners and the number of courts in which they are to be produced. The public prosecutor shall apply to the reserve inspector for the necessary number of police. Where he considers that the escort should be wholly or partly armed with muskets, he shall obtain the orders of the Superintendent of Police, or in his absence, of the Senior Police Officer at headquarters.

12- The public prosecutor shall furnish the escort commander with two copies of the list of prisoners in the prescribed police form No. 278 or, if possible he shall also send one copy to the Superintendent of Jail on the evening preceding the day on which the prisoners are required. The escort commander after making the search of the prisoners and satisfying himself that the directions with regard to fetters, etc. have been carried out and also personally complying with the directions with regard to handcuffs, etc. shall sign one copy of the list which shall be retained by the jail authorities concerned.

13- From the time of the delivery of the prisoners the responsibility for their safe custody shall rest with the escort commander until their return to the jail and endorsement by the Jailor of a certificate on the list to the effect that the prisoners have returned in security to the jail or have not returned owing to good and sufficient cause. The Public Prosecutor shall make such additions and alterations as may be necessary for the list before the prisoners are returned to jail.

14- Prisoners whom it is necessary to handcuff shall be handcuffed before leaving the jail. The handcuffs shall not be removed except when the prisoners are before the court or confined in a place of security.

15- Convicted prisoners and undertrial prisoners in the court of a Magistrate in camp shall be kept at night in the lock-up of a police station if there is any such station within five miles. When they are kept at night elsewhere other than in a lock-up they shall be fastened to each other by chains which should be procured by the escort commander from the jail before departure. When prisoners in a weak state of health have to be provided with conveyance, a dolimay or ordinarily be provided for such prisoners.

The escort commander in charge of the prisoners shall be responsible subject to the orders of the Magistrate, for their protection from the weather and for their transport and food.

16- Prisoners shall be escorted to the courts and back again to the jail by the nearest route, but as far as possible, bazars and crowded thoroughfares should be avoided.

17- When female prisoners are produced in courts, they shall not be sent along with the ordinary havalat guard; separate guards shall be provided.

Where jails are situated at a distance from courts prisoners will ordinarily be conveyed to and from courts in Government vehicles, unless it is not possible to supply such a conveyance.

Any prisoner who wants to travel in a separate conveyance and is willing to pay for himself as well as for his escort may be permitted by the public prosecutor to do so provided a suitable arrangement can conveniently be made.

19- All prisoners whose cases have been disposed of and who have to be sent back to the jail shall, as far as may be possible, be sent there without being kept waiting for others.

20- The public prosecutor shall apply to the reserve inspector for an additional guard if the guard in attendance is not sufficient.

21- In the case of prisoners whose testimony is required in criminal trials the charges on account of the dieting of the prisoners during their retention in the custody of the police guard, or on account of any traveling expenses incurred by the guard for their own journey or for that of the prisoners to or from the court concerned will be defrayed by the Police Department. But it shall be in the competency of any court in criminal cases to decline to summon any prisoner if the court is satisfied that his evidence is not necessary for the interest of public justice, and if the complainant or defendant applying for the said prisoner's examination before the court fails to deposit the estimated cost of conveying the prisoner to and from the court. These costs shall be calculated on the scale hereinafter laid down in the case of civil suits; if on examination of the said prisoner the court is of the opinion that his evidence was not required in the interest of public justice, the deposited costs shall together with a certificate to the effect under the hand and seal of the court, be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police of the district in which the court is held, and the money shall be credited according to the instructions to be issued by the Inspector-General of Police with the sanction of the State Government.

22- Deposit of costs.- In civil suits the court shall require any party to the suit, who may apply for the summoning of any prisoner under the Act to deposit prior to the issue of the summons, an amount sufficient to defray the estimated cost of conveyance, diet, and escort of the prisoner whose testimony is required :

Provided that no costs shall be demanded from pauper judgment-debtors in jail who have applied to be declared insolvent under Section 6 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, and whose attendance is required by a civil court at its own instance for examination under Section 14 of the said Act, or when the court is satisfied that the parties to the suit are absolutely unable to pay.

Such costs shall be calculated as follows :

(a) Conveyance by rail or road ... Actual charges as in Rule 21.

(b) Diet ... 50 paise per day when escorting in the plains and 75 paise when escorting in the hill tracts.

Police Escort

Traveling and daily allowance ... According to Rules 23 and 27 of the Financial Handbook, Volume III.

Pay of escort ... According to paragraph 158 of the Office Manual in which the rates are as follows :

Inspectors Rs. 12 per day, Sub-Inspectors Rs. 8 per day, Head Constables Rs. 5 per day. Constables Rs. 3 per day.

The money thus deposited shall be paid over by the court to the Superintendent of Police as provided for in Rule 21.

23- The above rules shall, mutatis mutandis, be applicable in the cases of those prisoners also who are sent for to answer charges made against them, as well as in the cases of prisoners who are sent for to give evidence in criminal trials :

Provided that in both classes of cases aforesaid the Police Department shall bear the charges of dieting the prisoners and of conveying them to and from the courts, which require their presence.

Conclusion-

This is an consolidated attempt to discuss various provisions in respect of production of prisoner in a one roof . the all enactment and rules which is relevant for this regard has been the same by which the legal professional easily short out their problems through this article. it is also pertinent to note here the article is being updated from time to time if any new announcement or amendment in any enactment has taken place.

..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

judges helpline//Vandana Singh katiyar

Saturday, December 12, 2020