Habeas Corpus Petition Denied- Subsequent Detention In Vishakhapatnam Held Valid Based On Order For Production By Special Magistrate: Sc In Kanu Sanyal V. District Magistrate Darjeeling

CASE TITLE:

Kanu Sanyal v, District Magistrate Darjeeling

DATE OF ORDER:

05th February, 1974

BENCH:

Justice P.N Bhagwati and Justice P.K Goswami

PARTIES:

Petitioner(s)- Kanu Sanyal

Respondent(s)- District Magistrate , Darjeeling and others

SUBJECT:

This case involved a writ petition of ‘Habeous corpus’ under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution which challenged the legality of this arrest in the Central Jail of Vishakhapatnam.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

Constitution of India, 1949

Article 32- Remedies for enforcing rights granted by this Part 

(1) It is guaranteed that you have the right to file the proper paperwork with the Supreme Court to request that your rights under this Part be enforced.

(2) For the purpose of enforcing any of the rights granted by this Part, the Supreme Court may issue directives, orders, or writs, including writs in the form of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, as may be necessary.

Prisoners Attendance in Court Act, 1955

Section 3- Power of courts to require appearance of prisoners to give evidence or answer a charge.

• Any civil or criminal court may issue an order in the manner outlined in the First Schedule, addressed to the official in charge of the prison, if it believes that any witness who is imprisoned is relevant to any case that is before it. With the caveat that no civil court may issue an order under this subsection against a person who is incarcerated in a facility located outside the State where the court is located.
• Any criminal court may issue an order in the manner outlined in the Second Schedule, addressed to the officer in charge of the prison, if an offence involving a person imprisoned is brought to its attention or is otherwise proceeding before it.
• No order made under this section by a court inferior to the court of a magistrate of the first class shall have effect unless it is countersigned by the district judge to whom that court is subordinate or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction that court is situated, and no order made under this section by a court 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.

Section 5- The officer in charge of the prison where the person named therein is incarcerated must arrange for the person to be taken to the court where his attendance is required so that he can be present there at the time of the order mentioned. The officer must also arrange for his custody to be kept in or near the court until he has been examined or until the judge or presiding officer of the court authorises him to be taken back to prison.

Section 6- When the individual for whom an order is made pursuant to Section 3— (a) is determined, in accordance with the rules set in this regard, to be unfit to be released from the jail where he is detained due to illness or other disability; or

(b) is in custody awaiting trial; or

(c) is being held without bond pending trial or a preliminary inquiry; or

(d) is being held for a period of time that would end before the time frame needed to remove him from custody and return him to the prison where he is confined under this Act,

The jail officer in charge must refuse to carry out the directive and send a letter to the court where the order was issued instead.

With the caveat that he won't do so in situations where—

(i) A criminal court issued the order, and

(ii) The person named in the order is not declared, in accordance with the rules made in this regard, to be unfit to be removed from the prison where he is confined due to illness or another infirmity while he is being held under committal for trial, under remand pending trial, or pending a preliminary investigation.

(iii) the location where the individual specified in the order must provide evidence is no more than five miles from the prison where he is being held.

BRIEF FACTS:

• About ten years prior to the case, the petitioner, Kanu Sanyal, was a well-known leader of the Naxalite movement that had its beginnings at the Naxalbari, Kharabari, and Phansidewa police stations in Siliguri Sub-Division of Darjeeling District, West Bengal.
• The Naxalite movement promoted violent methods to subvert the democratic system while encouraging armed insurrection against greedy landowners.
• Kanu Sanyal and a few of his companions were apprehended by police on August 19, 1970, from a hideout under the control of Phansidewa police station. A sizable quantity of weapons, ammo, and explosives were discovered in their possession at the time of their arrest.
• The Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, and the Explosive Substances Act all applied to the two criminal proceedings Phansidewa P.S. Case No. 3 dated 19 August 1970 and Phansidewa P.S Case No. 28 dated 29 June 1967 that were filed against Kanu Sanyal.
• Following his arrest, Kanu Sanyal was brought before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Siliguri, who ruled that he should be held in the Darjeeling District Jail for additional inquiry. As the two criminal charges were being investigated, Kanu Sanyal was regularly remanded in custody by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Darjeeling, every fourteen days.
• Later, two charge sheets were filed under sections 120B read with 302, 395, 397, 121, 122, 123, and 124A of the Indian Penal Code against Kanu Sanyal and 139 other accused before the Special Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Only a Sessions Court could adjudicate these offences.
• In accordance with the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act of 1955, the Special Magistrate of Visakhapatnam issued a warrant requesting Kanu Sanyal's appearance in his court. On June 14, 1972, the official in charge of the District Jail in Darjeeling sent Kanu Sanyal to the Court of the Special Magistrate in Visakhapatnam in accordance with the warrant.
• The Special Magistrate in Visakhapatnam then ordered the petitioner to be held in the Central Jail in Visakhapatnam pending committal proceedings.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT:

• Kanu Sanyal claimed that his initial imprisonment in the District Jail, Darjeeling, was unlawful since the Constitution's Article 22(1)(b) was broken because he was not notified of the reasons for his arrest.
• He argued that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Darjeeling lacked the authority to hear the cases brought against him and, as a result, could not approve his imprisonment for a period longer than fifteen days. Kanu Sanyal asserted that only the Siliguri Sub-Divisional Magistrate has the authority to try the cases and remand him in accordance with Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT:
• The respondents maintained that by complying with the warrant for production issued by the Special Magistrate in Visakhapatnam, the official in charge of the District Jail in Darjeeling acted legally. Kanu Sanyal was subsequently detained legally in Visakhapatnam's Central Jail.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The validity of Kanu Sanyal's imprisonment pursuant to the habeas corpus process was a key issue in the judgement. The main question before the court was whether the imprisonment that followed the Special Magistrate's (Visakhapatnam) warrant for production and the subsequent incarceration in the Central Jail (Visakhapatnam) was legal.
• The Court examined the validity of the order for production and the following imprisonment by delving into the pertinent provisions of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955. It was clear that a criminal court may require the production of a prisoner to answer charges under Section 3(2) of the Act. Specifically, the Special Magistrate of Visakhapatnam had issued a directive to have Kanu Sanyal appear before his court in this case.
• The Court then looked at Section 6 of the Act, which discusses the conditions under which the officer in charge of a prison may refuse to abide by a production order. The Proviso to Section 6's three prerequisites for application were highlighted by the Court. These circumstances are:
• A criminal court ought to issue the order.
• The person listed in the order must be detained either under remand pending trial or committal for trial.
• The individual shouldn't be deemed unfit to be released from prison because of illness or infirmity.
• The Court investigated whether the case met these requirements. It was determined that the Special Magistrate in Visakhapatnam had actually issued the order for production, which satisfied the first requirement. The second and third requirements were likewise satisfied because Kanu Sanyal was being held under committal for trial and was not medically unfit to be released from prison.
•  the Court determined that Section 6's Proviso applied, and as a result, the officer in charge of the District Jail in Darjeeling was allowed to transport Kanu Sanyal to the Central Jail in Visakhapatnam in accordance with the production order.

CONCLUSION:

• In conclusion, the Supreme Court denied Kanu Sanyal's request for a writ of habeas corpus because it determined that the Central Jail in Visakhapatnam's subsequent detention because of the Special Magistrate in Visakhapatnam's order for production was valid. The habeas corpus application was submitted after the initial time of custody, hence the court declined to consider whether his earlier confinement in the Darjeeling District Jail was legitimate.
• In Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling & Ors., the court upheld the importance of the writ of habeas corpus as a defence against arbitrarily and illegally detaining individuals. However, it also made clear how crucial it is for judges to take into account the precise timings and circumstances surrounding the detention when making decisions in these situations.
• The case also highlighted the significance of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955. It explained the circumstances in which a prison official may refuse to abide by a production order, protecting the rights of the prisoners while ensuring their appearance in court for required proceedings.
• A balance between individual rights and the requirement for proper administration of justice in the criminal justice system, the judgement added to the body of law surrounding habeas corpus and the constitutional protection of personal liberty.