James, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of Habeas Corpus by Naik Ram Pandey, a student of the University of Allahabad and is directed against the District Magistrate of Allahabad and the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Naini. Criminal Miscellaneous Cases No. 53 and 54 or 1960, respectively by Rama Shankar Singh and Raj Kishore Singh, two other, students of the University are similar petitions and are based on the same facts. The present judgment shall govern them all.
(2.) IN appears that the peace of the town of Allahabad had been seriously disturbed by acts of hooliganism allegedly committed by some students of the University and accordingly the authorities decided to close the University sine die with effect from the night between the 12th and 13th December 1959. Affidavits filed and papers produced before us disclose the following. On the 12th December: shortly before the actual closure of the University the Station Officer of police circle Colonelganj, within whose territorial jurisdiction lies the campus of the University, submitted a report against eleven students for action under Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure. In this report, after reciting the alleged unlawful activities of these students, the Station Officer stated that the authorities were being obliged to close the University on account of which there was grave apprehension of breach of public Pease in the town and danger to the life and property of the University authorities; he requested for action under Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure and also recommended that the students in question be arrested at once and bound aver Under Section 117 Code of Criminal Procedure. On receipt of this report the City Magistrate the same day passed three orders under the provisions of the Code: first, an order under Section 112 read with Section 107 calling upon each of the eleven students to show cause why he should not be made to execute a personal bond of Rs. 1,000/ - and two 'reliable sureties each in like amount for keeping the peace' for a period of two months; second, an order under Section 117(3) stating that he (the City Magistrate) was satisfied that t was necessary to take immediate measures for the prevention of breach of peace and directing each of the eleven students to give similar security for maintaining peace and public tranquility for the pendency of the enquiry before him, adding that in default of furnishing the required security the person concerned would be taken in custody and detained until such time as the security was furnished or the enquiry completed (whichever was earlier); third, an order under Section 114 stating that there was reason to fear that the eleven students concerned were likely to commit breach of peace forthwith and that such breach could not be prevented otherwise than by their immediate arrest and consequently directing the issue of warrants for their immediate arrest, together with copies of the Station Officer's report and the notices under Section 107/112 and 117(3). The necessary warrants were immediately issued and nine of the eleven students were arrested from their places of residence during the night between the 12th and 13th December. In the early hours of the 13th December they, along with the City Magistrate's warrants and his first two orders, were produced at the Allahabad Kotwali before Mr. J.P. Singhal, a first class Magistrate, who was one of the officers posted at various points of the town for dealing with the apprehended disturbances occasioned by the closure of the University. The warrants were in the form prescribed by the High Court under Section 344 of the Code and mentioned the "offence" as "Section 107/117 Code of Criminal Procedure". On their back the period of remand was given as "13 -12 -1959 to 27 -12 -1959", but Mr. Singhal crossed out "27" and substituted it by "14"; that is to say, instead of granting a remand for fourteen days he allowed it for only one day. The nine arrested students were sent to the Central Jail, Naini and on the authority of the warrants aforesaid admitted there. Next day, the 14th Dec, the City Magistrate personally went to the jail and read and explained his two orders made under Section 107/112 and Section 117(3) to the arrested students, gave them copies of both these orders as well as a copy of the report of the Station Officer and granted them a remand up to the 28th December. Each student signed the order -sheet of that day. Fourteen -day remands have been granted subsequently.
(3.) NOW one of the arrested students, Prabhakar Nath Dwivedi by name, on the 18th December 1959 filed petition No. 2762 of 1959 (1) for Habeas Corpus contending that his detention in the Naini Jail was illegal. The petition was heard by a Bench composed of Roy and Uniyal, JJ. On behalf of Prabhakar two arguments were advanced before their Lordships: first, that there had been an infringement of Article 22(2) of the Constitution inasmuch as when he was produced at the Kotwali before Mr. Singhal the latter was not functioning as a Court, so that the constitutional rule for production before the Court of the nearest Magistrate within twenty -four hours had been violated; second that the City Magistrate's order under Section 117(3) of the Code dated the 12th December 1959 was an invalid one. By their judgment dated the 23rd December 1959 their Lordships repelled the first argument but accepted the second and accordingly directed Prabhakar to be set at liberty. Then oh the 31st December another student, Islam Beg Changezi, moved petition No. 2858 of 1959 for Habeas Corpus urging the same grounds as Prabhakar. His petition was heard by the same Bench and by a judgment dated the 5th January 1960 his release ordered.;