Remand order endorsement requirements: absence of clear judicial endorsement makes the remand illegal, not a mere irregularity.

A remand order must contain a clear and specific judicial endorsement, especially where the remand exceeds 15 days; without it, the remand is illegal and cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity. Permitting a Reader to record the remand order was held to be a departure from settled procedure that went to the legality of the remand itself, so the impugned judgment was set aside and the matter was sent back to the High Court for fresh hearing with all contentions left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court's order upholding the remand and treating the recording of the remand order by the Reader as a mere irregularity could be sustained.

Analysis: The order recorded that the appellant had been remanded for more than 15 days in one go and that a clear and specific endorsement was necessary, without which the remand was illegal. It further noted that permitting the Reader to record the remand order was not a mere irregularity but a departure from settled procedure amounting to illegality.

Conclusion: The impugned judgment and order were set aside and the matter was remanded to the High Court for hearing afresh.

Final Conclusion: The matter was restored to the High Court for reconsideration with all contentions left open to both sides.

Ratio Decidendi: A remand order lacking the required clear and specific judicial endorsement cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity when the defect goes to the legality of the remand itself.

---