3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several precedents to establish the breadth of "proceedings" under Section 267 CrPC:

• Bharti Sachdeva v. State of Rajasthan (1996): Interpreted "other proceedings" narrowly, excluding investigations.
• Harshad S. Mehta v. CBI (1992): Held that "investigation" is excluded from "proceedings" under Section 267(1)(a).
• Madras High Court in C. Natesan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1999): Contradicted Delhi and Rajasthan High Courts by including investigations within "proceedings."
• Bobby @ Premveer v. State of U.P. (2000): Supported the inclusion of "investigation" under "proceedings."
• Vaman Narayan Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan (2004): Affirmed that police can seek removal of an accused from judicial to police custody for investigation purposes.
• CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992): Clarified that subsequent investigations in separate cases can warrant detention for the purpose of those investigations.
• State v. Sukh Singh (AIR 1954 Raj. 290): Early interpretation supporting limited production under Section 267.

These precedents present a dichotomy in the interpretation of "proceedings," with some courts restricting it to judicial steps like inquiry and trial, while others broadening it to include investigatory processes.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The High Court undertook a meticulous statutory interpretation of Section 267 CrPC:

1. Definition of "Proceeding": The court examined dictionary definitions and case law, concluding that "proceeding" encompasses both judicial and investigatory actions.
2. Legislative Intent: Emphasizing that if the legislature intended to exclude "investigation," explicit language would have been used, as seen in other sections like Sections 210 and 428 CrPC that explicitly mention "investigation."
3. Rule of Construction: Adhering to the principle that general terms should be given their natural, broad meaning unless context dictates otherwise. The court found no statutory language compelling a restrictive interpretation in this context.
4. Judicial Precedents: Differentiating between binding precedents and persuasive dicta, the court acknowledged contrary interpretations yet found them insufficient to restrict the ambit of "proceeding."
5. Purpose of Legislation: Aligning with the apex court’s view that procedural laws should facilitate justice, a broader interpretation of "proceeding" serves this objective by enabling comprehensive investigation.

The High Court ultimately determined that "other proceeding" within Section 267 CrPC does include "investigation," thus allowing the issuance of production warrants for investigatory purposes.

3.3 Impact

This landmark judgment has significant ramifications:

• Judicial Custody Transfers: Facilitates the transfer of accused individuals from judicial to police custody to aid in investigations for separate cases.
• Criminal Procedure: Broadens the application of Section 267 CrPC, ensuring that ongoing investigations can proceed without jurisdictional hindrances.
• Precedential Influence: Sets a precedent favoring a more inclusive interpretation of legal terms, potentially affecting future judicial interpretations.
• Law Enforcement Efficiency: Empowers law enforcement agencies to conduct thorough investigations by permitting access to accused individuals across multiple cases.

By integrating "investigation" within "proceedings," the judgment promotes a more flexible and effective criminal justice system.

4.1 Section 267 of CrPC

Section 267 CrPC grants criminal courts the authority to require the attendance of prisoners for answering charges or participating in proceedings. This includes both the accused and witnesses. The pivotal question in this case revolves around whether "other proceeding" under this section encompasses police investigations.

4.2 Production Warrant

A production warrant is a legal document issued by a court commanding the appearance of a person in court. Under Section 267 CrPC, it can direct the police to bring a detained individual to court for specific purposes related to ongoing legal proceedings.

4.3 Legal Proceeding

"Proceeding" in legal terms refers to any step taken in the course of legal action, including investigation, inquiry, and trial. The interpretation hinges on whether investigative actions by the police are considered part of these proceedings.

4.4 Section 2(h) CrPC

Section 2(h) defines "investigation" as all activities carried out by the police to gather evidence, including interrogations and searches. The key issue is whether these activities fall under the "proceedings" referred to in Section 267.