http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER: RAM NARAYAN SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF DELHI AND OTHERS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/03/1953
BENCH: SASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ) BENCH: SASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ) MUKHERJEA, B.K. DAS, SUDHI RANJAN HASAN, GHULAM BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.
CITATION: 1953 AIR 277 1953 SCR 652 CITATOR INFO : F 1969 SC1014 (12,13) D 1971 SC 178 (6,35,37) F 1971 SC2197 (7) R 1974 SC 510 (3) E 1976 SC1207 (70)
ACT: Criminal trial-Adjournment of case-No order remanding accused to custody--Legality of detention--Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, s. 344-Habeas corpus.
HEADNOTE: 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 Magistrate, 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 Magistrate 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 up...