Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. Following question has been referred to us for adjudication:-
'Whether production warrant requiring attendance of a prisoner lodged in judicial custody in one case can be issued under Section 267 CrPC for the purpose of investigation in another case and whether the expression 'other proceeding' and 'for the purpose of any proceedings' used in Section 267 and 267(1)(a) respectively would include 'investigation' as defined in Section 2(h) CrPC
2. The facts giving rise to this question may briefly be stated. One Yogesh Vijay submitted a written report on October 9, 2000 at the police Station Shipra Path Jaipur with the averments that 4-5 persons forcibly entered his house around 8 P.M., tied his hands and legs and made him to sit in a room. The miscreants had a 'Katta' (country made gun) and knives. They demanded ornaments and cash and threatened him for dire consequences if their demand was not fulfilled. They collected all the valuables and fled away. After they had left, the informant somehow manage to untie himself. On coming out of the house he found his car RJ- 14-1C-6516 and Scooter RJ-14-11M-7263 missing. The police station Shipra Path, on the basis of this information chalked out regular FIR and investigation commenced. In the course of investigation it was revealed that accused Santosh Yadav was involved in the matter. Santosh Yadav was already arrested by the Police Station Agra (U.P.) on November 11,2000 in connection with the offence under Section 4/25 Arms Act in FIR No. 504/2000 and had been remanded to judicial custody by Chief Judicial Magistrate Agra City (U.P.). While he was in police custody, car RJ-14-1 C-6516 belonging to informant Yogesh Vijay got recovered at his instance. When the fact came to the knowledge of the SHO PS Shipa Path Jaipur, he made request to the CJM Agra City for handing over the custody of accused Santosh Yadav. The CJM Agra City then directed that the production warrant on Proforma 'B' should be got issued from the competent authority. The SHO Shipra Path Jaipur thereafter moved application to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 8 Jaipur City for passing appropriate order in the matter. Learned Magistrate rejected the application vide order dated November 14, 2000 holding that as per the provisions of Section 267(1) Cr.PC he did not have jurisdiction to issue production warrant of the accused. In doing so the learned Magistrate relied on Bharti Sachdeva v. State of Rajasthan 1996 CrLJ 2102, for the proposition that words 'any proceedings' as mentioned in Section 267(1) CrPC do not include investigation of the offence by the police as they are not the proceedings before the Court, therefore, issuance of production warrant was not justified. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 8 Jaipur City, the State of Rajasthan preferred revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur City. Learned Sessions Judge while concurring with the view expressed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the revision petition vide order dated May 21, 2001. The State of Rajasthan then approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashing of the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. Learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated November, 27, 2001 was of the view that issue involve in the matter required reconsideration by a Larger Bench. That is how the matter has been placed before us.
3. Looking to the nature of controversy we propose to consider the issue elaborately.
4. Section 267(1) CrPC reads as under:-
'267. Power to require attendance of prisoners.-(1) Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceedings 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 for answering to the charge or for the purpose of such proceeding or, as the case may be, for giving evidence.
5. A look at Section 267(1) demonstrates that a Criminal Court in the course of an inquiry, trial or another proceeding can direct the production of an accused confined or detained in another prison for the purpose of answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him. He can also be called to appear as a witness for the purpose of giving evidence.
6. Section 267 CrPC corresponds to Section 3 of the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955 (for short '1955 Act') and Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of 1955 Act has not been included in Section 267 CrPC as it refers exclusively to Civil Court. Sub-section (1) of Section 267 CrPC combines Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the 1955 Act and makes the provision in a redrafted form. The said Sub-sections (1) & (2) read thus;
(1) Any Civil or Criminal Court may, if it thinks that the evidence of any person confined in 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.
Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 267 CrPC split up the provision in Sub-section (3) of 1955 Act, after dropping references to Civil Courts. The power given to the district Magistrate under Section 3 of the 1955 of Act has been given to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the CrPC. The expression Magistrate of the second class has been used for a Criminal Court which is inferior to the Court of a Magistrate of first class. Sub-section 3 of 1955 Act reads under :-'(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 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 that Court is situate.'
With the advent of CrPC 1973, 1955 Act stood repealed. As already noticed similar provisions had been introduced by enacting Section 267 CrPC.
7. We now proceed to analyse as to what is the ambit and scope of the word 'proceeding' used in Section 267 CrPC
8. A close look at Section 267 demonstrates that word 'proceeding' has been used at three places:-
(i) 'other proceeding under this code' 1267(1)]
(ii) 'for the purpose of any proceeding against him' [267 (1)(a)] (iii) for the purpose of such proceeding [last portion of Section 267 (1)]
9 'All the proceedings' under CrPC for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate, who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf) have been included under 'investigation' by Section 2(h) CrPC.
10. Webstor's New International Dictionary defines the expression 'proceeding' thus:-
(i) progress or movement from one thing to another;
(ii) the course of procedure in an action at law; and
(iii) any step or action taken in conducting litigation.
11. In Halsbury Laws of England Volume 1 page 5 para 5, it is laid down that:-
'The term 'Proceeding' is frequently used to denote a step in an action and obviously it has that meaning in such phrases as 'proceeding in any cause or matter; When used alone, however, it is in certain statutes to be construed as synonymous with or including an action.'
12. The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning of the word 'proceeding' as used in the legal sense as step taken in legal action.
13. In State of Maharastra v. Yadav Kohachade, 2000 CrLJ 959, Bombay High Court indicated that 'proceedings' would mean and include an action or prosecution and sometimes as meaning a step in an action and, therefore, it includes all steps taken in furtherance of prosecution, i.e. arrest, remand, interrogation and investigation.
14. Allahabad High Court in Ranjeet Singh v. State of U.P., 1995 CrLJ 3505, had occasion to consider the words 'or for the purpose of any proceedings against him' occurring in Section 267(1)(a) CrPC. In para 6 of the judgment it was indicated as under:-
'The first contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant meets with rejection without much difficulty. The words 'or for the purpose of any proceedings against him' occurring in Section 267(1)(a) are compendious and include proceedings encompassing all stages and have in their fold remand proceedings and even proceedings of an investigation. In the present case, the presence of the applicant is required for the purpose of remand which may even include police remand or for their purposes of the investigation.'
15. Division Bench of this Court in Bharti Sachdeva v. State of Rajasthan (supra), indicated thus.:-
'Under Section 267 CrPC the production warrant for attendance of prisoner in some case can be issued only for purposes of answering the charge of an offence, or attending any proceedings against him or for examining such prisoners as a witness in the Court and it cannot be issued to require attendance of a prisoner in custody for purpose of investigation in the other case registered against him. If the accused is facing inquiry of trial in more than one case then he may be directed before the Court by both the Courts before which inquiry, trial or proceeding is pending. Hence, the purpose for which person confined or detained in jail could be ordered to be produced before the Court is limited. Investigation of the offence by the police and interrogation cannot fall under the purpose which are included in Section 267 CrPC.'
16. Single Bench of Delhi High Court in Harshad S. Mehta v. CBI, 1992 (3) CCR 2793, held that an 'investigation' by the police is excluded from the expression or for the purpose of any other proceeding' in Section 267(1)(a) CrPC. The Court can exercise the power under Section 267 only for the purpose of asking the accused the answer to the charge in inquiry or trial or in the proceeding pending before it or for giving evidence as witness in Court but cannot require the attendance of accused in investigation.
17. Madras High Court in C. Natesan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 CrLJ 1382, while disagreeing with Delhi and Rajasthan High Court propounded that the expression 'or for the purpose of any proceeding against him' occurring in Section 267(1)(a) CrPC include proceedings encompassing all stages including remand proceedings and even proceedings of an investigation. The High Court further pointed out that under the scheme of CrPC the police has powers to formally arrest or to seek remand of the accused already arrested from the nearest Magistrate. Madras High Court collected in support of its conclusion from the observation of the Supreme Court in C.B.I, v. Anupam J. Kulkarni,1992 (3) SCC 141 , that even if an accused is in judicial custody in connection with the investigation of an earlier case, the investigation agency can formally arrest him regarding his involvement in a different case and associate him with the investigation of that other case. The importance of this decision as far as the case on hand is concerned is that even when a person is in judicial custody, he can be shown arrest in respect of any number of other crimes registered elsewhere.
18. Bobby @ Premveer v. State of U.P., 2000 CrLJ 4125, Allahabad High Court held that production warrant under Section 267(1) CrPC could be sought for answering to a charge for some other offence during investigation also of a person who is confined in prison. The High Court observed that the forms 36 and 37 of CrPC which correspond in the first schedule and second schedule respectively of 1955 Act for some notable changes, where the material change was that form 37 deals with an accused who is in prison requiring for evidence and Form 36 deals with an accused who is in prison requiring for answering to charge. Corresponding section deals with an accused to be produced with the expression 'other proceedings under this Code' and thereby attendance of prisoner can be procured by execution or transit warrant only to faciliate the proceeding against the prisoner detained in prison.
19. In a recent decision in Vaman Narayan Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, 2004 (2) WLC 769 (Raj.), RLW 2004(4) Raj. 2354, Rajasthan High Court held that the police can seek permission to remove an accused from judicial custody to police custody for completion of an investigation in another case.
20. Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court answered a similar question in State v. Sukh Singh, AIR 1954 Raj. 290. The question for consideration was whether where an accused who is kept in jail by orders of adjournment or remand under Section 344 can be handed over to the police in some other case for purposes of investigation? Answering the said question the Division Bench observed in para 4 as under:-
'Supposing, a person is accused of one offence, and investigation of that case is complete and challan has been submitted to Court, he will in these circumstances, be sent to jail for judicial custody to await his trial. Supposing later evidence is discovered of his complicity in another case, and the police in order to complete the investigation of that case requires to question the accused or the handing over of the accused to police custody would aid the investigation in some way, in such a case we fail to understand why it may not be open to Magistrate under Section 167(2) to take the accused out of jail or judicial custody and hand him over to the police for the maximum period of 15 days provided in that section of course, before the Magistrate does so, he will have to satisfy himself that a good case is made out for detaining the accused in police custody in connection with the investigation of the other case.'
21. In C.B.I, v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (supra), the argument for consideration before the Apex Court was as to whether after initial remand of 15 days, can an investigating agency obtain a police remand The Apex Court gave answer in negative. It was observed in part 11 thus:
'If that is permitted then the police can go on adding some offence or the order of a serious nature at various stages and seek further direction in police custody repeatedly this would defeat the very object underlying Section 167(2)'
After the aforequoted observation, their Lordships further indicated as under:-
'However, we must clarify that this limitation shall not apply to a different occurrence in which complicity of the arrested accused is disclosed. That would be a different transaction and if an accused is in judicial custody in connection with one case and to enable the police to complete their investigation of the other case, they can require his detention in police custody for the purpose of associating him with the investigation of the other case. In such a situation he must be formally arrested in connection with other case and then obtain the order of the Magistrate for detention in police custody.'
22. In State v. Dawood Ibrahim, 2000 (10) SCC 438), the police submitted a composite charge-sheet against 198 persons, showing 45 of them as absconders. After the designated Court took cognizance of the case the Central Government entrusted further investigation in the case to the CBI. In the course of such investigation the CBI apprehended one of the absconders mentioned in the charge-sheet. Who, in his confessional statement, disclosed that Dawood Ibrahim and other accused had taken active part in the criminal conspiracy. Thereafter the CBI moved application before the Designated Court praying for issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest against Dawood Ibrahim and other accused to initiate further proceedings in the matter to apprehend them and or to take further action to declare them as proclaimed offenders. The Designated Court rejected the application and observed that no process could be issued by the Court in aid of investigation under Section 73 CrPC. The question for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was; When and under what circumstances a Court can invoke the provisions of Section 73 CrPC
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court on examining various provisions of CrPC propounded in para 24 thus:
'.....Since warrant is and can be issued for appearance before the Court only and not before the police and since authorisation for detention in police custody is neither to be given as a matter of course nor on the mere asking of the police, but only after exercising of judicial discretion based on materials placed before him, it can not be said that warrant of arrest under Section 73 of the Code could be issued by the Courts solely for the production of the accused before the police in aid of investigation'
23. Coming to the facts of Bharti Sachdeva v. State (supra), we notice that two FIRs were lodged against Moti Lal Sachdeva, one at Police Station Bhimganj Mandi, Kota and another at Police Station Tukoganj, Indore (MP). The Police at Kota applied for production warrant before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Kota for issuance of production warrant of Moti Lal Sachdeva for bringing him from Indore to Kota. The ACJM Kota passed the order and a formal production warrant was issued and the detenue was produced before the ACJM Kota and inspite of objection on behalf of the detenue the ACJM Kota passed the orders authorising the police to arrest him in the case registered at Kota Police Station. .Formal arrest of the detenue was shown on February 9, 1995 and remand of Moti Lal Sachdeva was granted from time to time. The remand orders were challenged in the Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court. Rajasthan High Court in para 37 of the decision referred to decision of Delhi High Court in Harshad S. Mehta v. CBI (supra), and observed that the words 'other proceedings' have been examined in Harshad S. Mehta's case (supra), and it does not include investigation by the police and held thus:
'Hence the purpose for which person confined or detained in jail could be ordered to be produced before the Court is limited. Investigation of the offence by the police and interrogation cannot fall under the purposes which are included in Section 267 of the Code. We are in agreement with the Delhi High Court view that investigation by police cannot be included in any other proceedings as they are not proceedings before the Court.'
Having made aforesaid observations the Division Bench ultimately indicated that since Moti Lal Sachdeva was no longer in illegal detention, hence the habeas corpus petition was dismissed as by the time the detenue. Moti Lal Sachdeva was transferred from Indore to Kota.
24. Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Bobby @ Premveer v. State of U.P. (supra), declared the ratio indicated in Bharati Sachdeva (supra), as obiter dicta.
25. Having thus noted the definitions of 'other proceedings' investigation and the relevant case law, a need arises to consider the argument that may be advanced in support of ratio indicated in Harshad S. Mehta (supra), and Bharti Sachdeva (supra). It may be argued that if Legislature had thought to include 'investigation' as one of the contingencies where Section 267 CrPC was to be attracted, it may well have used the expression 'investigation' and nothing prevented Legislature from doing so. There are several other sections in CrPC such as Sections 210 and 428 where in the Legislature has used all the three expressions i.e. investigation, inquiry and trial and, therefore, only one inference may be drawn that 'investigation' was not to be included under Section 267 CrPC and, therefore, specifically the words inquiry and trial alone have been used. The expression 'other proceeding under this code' after the words 'inquiry and trial' deliberately exclude the word 'investigation'
26. Whether the word 'other proceedings' can be understood to have a wider meaning, depends upon the Rule of construction. The cardinal rule of interpretation is to allow the general words to take their natural wide meaning unless the language of the statue give a different indication or such meaning is likely to lead to absurd results in which case their meaning can be restricted by the application of this rule and they may be required to fall in line with specific things designated by the proceeding words. But unless there is a genus which can be comprehended from the proceedings words. There can be no question of invoking this rule. Nor can this rule have any application where the general words precede specific words (vide Asstt. Collector v. Ramdev Tabacco Company, 1991 (2) SCC 119).
27. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (supra), on the rule of construction propounded as under-
'The procedural law is meant to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate the same. It is an accepted rule that an interpretation which further the ends of justice should be preferred.'
28. A bare reading of Section 2(h) CrPC would show that 'all the proceedings' conducted by a police officer for collecting evidence come under the definition of 'investigation'. The words 'all the proceedings' referred in Section 2(h) in our considered opinion would also include the expression used in the words 'other proceeding under this Code' (Section 267(1), 'for the purpose of any proceedings against him' (Section 267(1)(a) and 'for the purpose of such proceeding' (last portion of Section 267(1)). In order to further the ends of justice wider meaning is required to be given to the word 'proceeding' used in Section 267 CrPC. Had the Legislature intended to give restrictive meaning to the words 'other proceeding under the Code' (Section 267, they would not have used the expression 'for the purpose of any proceedings against him' in Section 267(1)(a).
29. The Apex Court in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (supra), without quoting Section 267 CrPC, clarified that if an accused is in judicial custody in connection with one case and to enable the police to complete their investigation of the other case, they can require his detention in police custody for the purpose of associating him with the investigation of the other case. In such, situation he must be formally arrested in connection with other case and then obtain the order of the Magistrate for detention in police custody.
30. Thus, we are inclined to hold that the words 'other proceeding under this Code' occurring in Section 267 and the words 'or for the purpose of any proceeding' used in Section 267(1)(a) are compendious and include proceedings of an investigation. With great respect we disagree with the judgments rendered by learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Harshad S. Mehta (supra), and two learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court in Bharti Sachdeva (supra). We are of the view that in these two judgments the general words 'other proceeding' occurring in Section 267 CrPC have not been analysed in right perspective.
31. In view of what we have discussed herein above we answer the question referred to us as under:-
'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 CrPC. 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) CrPC.
32. Let the papers be placed before the learned Single Judge, to be dealt with in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations indicated herein above.