Issuance Of Production Warrant Entails Serious Consequences; Obligatory For Trial Court To Pass Order In Consonance With S. 267 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed a production order, observing that it was silent on whether the prisoner whose production had been directed, was accused in that case or required for the investigation. According to Section 267 CrPC, in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under if it appears to a criminal Court that a person confined or detained in a prison should...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed a production order, observing that it was silent on whether the prisoner whose production had been directed, was accused in that case or required for the investigation.
According to Section 267 CrPC, in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under if it appears to a criminal Court that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for the purpose of any proceedings against him, the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court for the purpose of such proceeding.
Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu said, "Since issuance of production warrant entails serious consequences; therefore, it was obligatory for the learned JMIC to pass the order impugned in consonance with Section 267 of the Cr.P.C."
The Court was hearing a plea of Naveen Dabas, under Section 482 of the CrPC, for quashing of an order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC), whereby an application of prosecution was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be produced by the Superintendent, Central Jail-2, Tihar, New Delhi on production warrant for investigation in an attempt to murder case.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner, that in terms of Section 267 Cr.P.C., it was obligatory upon JMIC to record its satisfaction that the presence of the petitioner was required for investigation in the FIR in an attempt to murder case.
On the other hand, the State Counsel acknowledged that no reason had been assigned by the JMIC but still defended the impugned order on the premise that the petitioner was an accused in the FIR and was nominated by the co-accused based on disclosures made during the investigation.
After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to a Rajasthan High Court judgement where a Full Bench after discussing the case laws on the subject stated: "The police can seek permission to remove an accused from judicial custody to police custody for completion of investigation in another case and for this purpose, production warrant under Section 267 Cr.PC. can be issued. The expression “other proceeding” used in Section 267(1) and “for the purpose of any proceedings” occurring in Section 267(1)(a) would include “investigation” as defined under Section 2(h) Cr.P.C.”
However, the Court noted that it is nowhere discernible from the production order that the petitioner was an accused in the FIR or that he was required for investigation in that case; rather the impugned order was completely silent in this regard.
Justice Sindhu said although the State Counsel tried to justify the impugned order while making reference to the application moved by the prosecution before the JMIC, that would not serve the purpose since it is for the Court to apply its mind in terms of Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. and then to pass an order for production warrant if thinks appropriate.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the production order.
Ankit Karna, Azad & Kritika Singh, Advocates for the petitioner.
Kiran Pal Singh, AAG, Haryana for the respondent.
Title: Naveen Dabas @ Bali v. State of Haryana
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 117