TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an accused remanded to custody on commitment of the case to the Court of Session under Section 209(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires a fresh remand order by the Sessions Court to keep the custody valid. (ii) Whether the fifteen-day limitation on remand under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to the Court of Session.
Issue (i): Whether an accused remanded to custody on commitment of the case to the Court of Session under Section 209(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires a fresh remand order by the Sessions Court to keep the custody valid.
Analysis: Section 209(b) authorises the Magistrate, upon commitment of a sessions case, to remand the accused to custody during and until the conclusion of the trial. That remand continues to operate throughout the sessions trial and is not exhausted merely because the accused is produced, or on some dates not produced, before the Sessions Court. Section 309 concerns postponement or adjournment of inquiry or trial and the power to remand for the next date fixed, but it does not displace the remand already made under Section 209(b) at the stage of commitment.
Conclusion: No fresh remand by the Sessions Court was required, and the custody did not become illegal for want of repeated remand orders.
Issue (ii): Whether the fifteen-day limitation on remand under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to the Court of Session.
Analysis: The proviso to Section 309(2) expressly limits remand to fifteen days at a time for a Magistrate. The absence of any restriction for the Court of Session shows that the proviso is confined to Magistrates and does not govern Sessions Courts. The provision is meant to regulate adjournments and remands in the context of trial management, not to cut down the continuing custody authorised under Section 209(b).
Conclusion: The fifteen-day remand restriction does not apply to the Court of Session.
Final Conclusion: The habeas corpus challenge to custody failed because the remand under the commitment order remained effective throughout the sessions trial and the Sessions Court was not bound by the fifteen-day limitation relied upon by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: A remand order made by the Magistrate at the time of commitment under Section 209(b) continues during the sessions trial until its conclusion, and the fifteen-day remand limit in Section 309 applies only to Magistrates, not to the Court of Session.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
