Delhi High Court
Brij Mohan And Others vs The State (Delhi Administration) on 26 April, 1984
Author: Sharief-Ud-Din
Bench: M S Din, R Aggarwal
JUDGMENT
Sharief-Ud-Din, J.
1. The petitioners are in judicial custody and are lodged in Tihar Jail Delhi. The short question they have raised is that their custody by respondent No. 2 during the time when they are taken to and from the court is unlawful as it amounts to their transfer from judicial to police custody by respondent No. 1.
2. The others point raised by petitioners is that as many as thirteen cases have been registered by U.P. and M.P. Police against them in which they have to attend the identification proceedings and that respondent No. 2 during their custody to and from the court gives access to U.P. and M.P. police along with others to the judicial lock up as a result of which they will be prejudiced in the identification proceedings in those cases.
3. On consideration of the arguments advanced we are of the view that the second objection listed above is of general type and vague in nature. On their own showing the cases are from 1977 onwards though two of these are of 1982. It is impossible to believe that despite lapse of so much time the identification proceedings if any in these cases have not been carried out. It is also impossible to believe that police officers from U.P. and M.P. are given access by respondent No. 2 to judicial lock up. If it were so the petitioners would have definitely made a grievance about it before the courts in which they are appearing as undertrials.
4. As far the first point is concerned S. 270 Criminal Procedure Code makes it obligatory upon the officer in charge of jail to cause the prisoners to be produced in the court. How and in what manner this is to be done is laid down in Manual for the Superintendence and Management of Jails in the Punjab which is also applicable to Union Territory of Delhi. Chapter XXVII para 815 reads :
"On the date fixed in the warrant of a prisoner committed to trial or on the receipt of an order in the form of the first or second Schedules annexed to Act III of 1900 properly drawn up, the unconvicted prisoners concerned shall be placed in the custody of the police for conveyance to Court."
5. Similarly in Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act of 1955 at Para 13 it is laid down :
"From the time of delivery of the prisoners the responsibility of their safe custody shall rest with the escort commander untill their return to the jail and endorsement by the Superintendent of prison of a certificate on the list to the effect that prisoners have returned in security to the Jail or have not returned owing to good and sufficient cause. The officer in charge of the escort shall make such additions or alterations as may be necessary in the list before the prisoners ate returned to Jail."
6. This would show that the only lawful and recognized method of producing the undertrials before the courts is to hand them over to escort commander of the police force. There is no other safe and effective method of conveyance of prisoners to and from the court. This is also in the interest of the safety of the prisoners.
7. Under S. 55 of the Prisons Act 1894 even when an undertrial is carried to court under a police escort he will for all practical purposes be deemed to be in the custody of prison authorities. It would thus be clear that the petitioners like any other undertrials remain in the judicial custody even when they are carried to and from the court. They are taken to court and brought back on the orders of the court and ill that the respondent No. 1 does is to ask the respondent No. 2 to escort them to and from the Court. Since the rules on the subject are very clear we fail to understand how the custody of the petitioners during transit to and from the court by respondent No. 2 becomes unlawful. We find no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed.
8. Petition dismissed.
