The accused in India have certain rights, the most basic of which are listed in the Constitution of India. The general theory behind these rights is that the government has tremendous power to prosecute organizations and therefore individuals are entitled to some degree of protection from government abuse of these rights. Chapter XXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with six important sections introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure to protect the existence of persons detained in prison in front of the Criminal Procedure Court. It defines the exact conditions and circumstances under which such a person will be taken to court. These sections appear to be included by the provisions of the 1955 Prisoner (Attendance in Court) Act. The law also regulates the production of persons in prison and imprisoned.
Laws relating to attendance of persons confined or detained in prisons
Section:-226 – Definitions
In this section, terms such as “imprisoned” and “prison”. The term “detainee” includes persons detained under the law governing preventive detention.
(1) “Prison” means a prison or place that is permanently or temporarily used under the general or specific order of the state government for the detention of prisoners, and all related to it. Includes land and buildings, but does not include –
- The location used by the state government under Section 541 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1882 (10, 1882),
- A place designated by the state government as an auxiliary prison by general or special order.
Section: – 267– Power to require the attendance of prisoners
A person whose criminal court has been imprisoned or detained in a prison during an investigation, or other proceedings under the Code is
(a) For a criminal offense or proceeding against him; or
(b) Justice. It is necessary to hear the opinions of people such as witnesses for the purpose —
this section detains prison officers if the court determines that the presence of a prison officer is necessary, either
(1) To answer allegations of criminal offences or
(2) To file a proceeding against a prison officer. Allow the court to instruct the court to do so.
(3) When the judicial administration requires that the person is heard as a witness.
In U.P. where the defendant was arrested and detained in Maharashtra under the NDPS Act brought to Moradabad in U.P. in connection with another case, after the completion of the Moradabad trial, he had to be returned to the prison he was brought in, even though his detention was automatically terminated under Maharashtra’s NDPS Act. It was established that there was no such thing. Or it no longer exists after he was transferred to Moradabad. If a person detained in Indore prison is taken to Kota under another criminal investigation warrant, the surrender warrant can only be issued to answer an investigation, trial, or other processes, or accusation, which is illegal for being examined as a witness and do not ask about other crimes.
Section:- 268 – Power of the State Government to exclude certain persons from the operation of Section 267
The state government may, by general or special order, order an individual or group of individuals not to be removed from prison in prison or detention at any time on a particular matter. There are no orders that do not comply with Section 267 concerning a person or class of persons, whether before or after a state government order. In addition, the state government must consider issues such as the nature of the crime, the reason for the placement or detention of an individual or group of individuals, and the possibility of obstruction before issuing an order. It is against public order and morals when an individual or a group of people may be taken out of prison for the benefit of the general public. The authority given to the state government should be interpreted strictly. Orders under Section 268 (2) must be self-contained and eloquent. A person to whom an order under Section 268 applies shall not be detained unless a special arrest order is issued by a competent court.
Section: – 268(1) Reasoned order to be passed
An order prohibiting a particular defendant from attending court must be upheld by a statement of the nature of the crime, the potential for obstruction, and reasons that reflect the public interest associated with the case.
Section: – 269 – Officer in charge of prison to abstain from carrying out order in certain contingencies
If a person ordered under Section 267 cannot be taken out of prison due to illness or illness, or is in pretrial or pretrial detention or pretrial detention, or is detained before trial for the period that elapses before the period required for him to with the order and be returned to the correctional facility in which he is detained or detained. Such witnesses must be within 25 km of the facility and the facility manager shall not abstain for the reasons outlined in clause (b). This section guides prison officers and establishes reasons for refraining from executing court orders made under Section 267 “Remand or Pretrial Detention” in Section 269 CrPC. If the procedure is not in progress, the defendant may be reasonably transferred for further investigation, pre-trial, or trial purposes. Faizabad’s prison, which is prosecuted with the consent of the relevant courts and executes orders under CrPC section 267 of the following courts, is detained under CrPC section 309. He challenged the competency of the Magistrate at Lucknow to pass orders under Section 267 of the CrPC when he was already imprisoned in a prison awaiting hospitalization. The mere fact that the placement procedure associated with the same defendant was pending elsewhere removed the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace at the post-crime location to issue an order under Section 267 of the CrPC, and such order of the Magistrate at Lucknow did not suffer from any infirmity.
Section 270:– Prisoner to be brought to Court in custody
By the provisions of Section 269, the prison director shall, after processing the order issued under Section 267, Paragraph 1, formally co-sign by Paragraph 2, Paragraph 2 as necessary and file a lawsuit against the nominated person. The order shall be issued. His presence must be there at the time specified in the order and he will be in or near the court until an interrogation is conducted or until the court approves that he will return to the prison in which he is detained.
Section: – 271 – Power to issue a commission for examination of a witness in prison
The section empowers the Court to grant a mandate to question a detained or imprisoned person if the Court considers that the person’s testimony is necessary for justice and his appearance cannot be get if there is no certain delay or cost, or the inconvenience, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable.
Analysis and Conclusion
Despite various safeguards at CrPC, police constitutional arrest rights continue to be abused today. It is also believed that police often used their position of power to intimidate those arrested and use their offices to extort money. There are also numerous reports of violence in custody, and many now believe that the deprivation of the basic rights of those arrested is commonplace. There are also criticisms that the police do not inform those arrested about the charges against them and thus leave those arrested awkwardly in custody, completely unaware of their alleged crimes. Shortly, changes in criminal justice management are needed so that the state realizes that its main task is not to punish, but to socialize and rehabilitate offenders and, above all, to understand It is clear that socialization is not the same as a punishment, as it includes prevention, education, care, and rehabilitation as part of social defense. The rationale for the formulation of Chapter 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to ensure the sending of individuals, persons held in custody or solitary confinement to prisons, reformatories, or reformatory before the Criminal Court. Detailed conditions under which this may be performed as well as reasonable and valid reasons for doing or not doing so have also been defined.
Author(s) Name: Shrishti Saini (Ramaiah College of Law)
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, s 226
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, s 541
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, s 267
Mohd Daud V. Superintendent, District Jail, Moradabad, 1993 Cr LJ 1358 (All)
 Bharti Sachdeva V. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr LJ 2102 (Raj)
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, s 268
 Bhajan Vir Singh V. State of Haryana, 1991 Cr LJ 1311 (P&H)
 Surjit Singh V. State of Punjab, 1988 Cr LJ 533 (P&H)
Mohd Ansari V. Secretary, Govt of TN, 2003 Cr LJ 524 (Mad)
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, s 269
 Ranjeet Singh V. State of UP, 1995 Cr LJ 3505 (All)
 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, s 270
 Nain Singh V. Nain Singh, 1992 Cr LJ 2004 (J&K) : LNIND 1990 JNK 13