Judgment : This petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for issuing directions to the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, is filed under the folic wing circumstances. 2. The petitioner Mrs. Bartley surrendered before the police at 8. a.m. on 15th November, 1382. She was produced before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate at 2.30 p.m. on 15th November, 1982. The police filed a remand report praying for judicial custody of the petitioner, accompanied by an affidavit that she was not ill-treated. The learned Counsel for the petitioner opposed the application for remand and filed a counter setting out the facts of the case and the ill-treatment meted out to the petitioner. The Court ordered remand for fourteen days. The counsel then filed an application for bail attaching to it the counter for the opposition of remand. The Court ordered notice on the bail application returnable by 17th November, 1982. The learned Counsel was not heard on the bail application. The learned Counsel has preferred this petition stating, when the police asked for remand, the accused has a right to make representation against remand being ordered. If the accused complains to Court about the ill-treatment meted out, the Court has to give a hearing and make a note of the complaint of the ill-treatment complained of. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking directions to be issued to the concerned Magistrate that the accused has a right to be heard before remand is ordered. If the accused wants to be represented by a counsel of her choice, he has to be heard. If any counter is preferred by the accused, the Court has to receive it. If the accused has complaints of ill-treatment, the Court has to make a note of that. If any written representation on behalf of the accused is made the Court has to be receive it. 4. Mr. Rangavajjula, learned Counsel for petitioner, brought to my notice first provisions under section 167(2)(b) Criminal Procedure Code, which runs as follows: "No Magistrate shall authorize detention in any custody under this section unless the accused is produced before him." The learned Counsel argued, remand proceedings is of the nature of the Judicial Proceedings and not an administrative one. Without the production of the accused, there cannot be a remand. Without the production of the accused, there cannot be a remand. When both parties are present in Court they have to be heard Natural Justice requires the hearing should be given by Court. 5. In support of his petition, the learned Counsel drew my attention to a passage in In re M.R. Venkataraman2, wherein the learned Judges observed: "......it does seem certain that an illegality was committed by the Magistrate in issuing an order of remand without having the prisoners produced before him and asking them whether they wished anybody to represent their cause and giving them an opportunity of showing cause why they should not be further remanded." He then relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Raj Narain v. Central Jail1 and brought to my notice the following observations of Court: "It stands to reason that an order of remand will have to be passed in the presence of the accused. Otherwise the position will be that a Magistrate of Court will be passing orders of remand mechanically without having heard the accused for a considerably long time. If the accused is before the magistrate when a remand order is being passed, he can make representations that no remand order should be passed and also oppose any move for further remand. For instance be may rely upon the inordinate delay that is being caused by the prosecution in the matter and he can attempt to satisfy the Court that no further remand should be allowed. Again it may be that an accused, on a former occasion may have reconsidered the position and may be willing to execute bond, in which case a remand order will be totally unnecessary. The fact that the person concerned does rot desire to be released on bail or that he can make written, representations to the magistrate are, in our opinion besides the point. The fact that the person concerned does rot desire to be released on bail or that he can make written, representations to the magistrate are, in our opinion besides the point. For instance, in cases where a person is sought to be proceeded against under Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, it would be open to him to represent that circumstances have materially changed and a further remand las become unnecessary." The learned Counsel next drew my attention to Article 22(1) of the Constitution which is as follows: "No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice." Under the said Article, a person arrested has a constitutional right to consult a legal practitioner concerning the arrest. A person who has been arrested has a constitutional right to be defended by an Advocate of his choice. He placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam and others, and drew my attention to the following passage: "The Criminal Procedure Code allows the right to be defended by Counsel but that is not a guaranteed right. The framers of the Constitution have well thought of his right and by including the prescription in the Constitution have put it beyond the power of any authority to alter it without the Constitution being altered. A law which provides differently must necessarily be a bnoxious to the guarantee of the Constitution. There is nothing in the words of the Constitution which permits any authority so alter this condition even on ground of public interest as is the case which the guaranteed rights in Article 19. Nor can we by a niggling argument lessen the force of the declaration so explicit in its terms or whittle down its meaning by a specious attempt at supposed harmony between rights which are not interdependent. There are three rights and each stands by itself. The first is the right to be told the reason of the arrest as soon as an arrest in made, the second is the right to be produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours and the third is the right to be defended by a lawyer of one’s choice. There are three rights and each stands by itself. The first is the right to be told the reason of the arrest as soon as an arrest in made, the second is the right to be produced before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours and the third is the right to be defended by a lawyer of one’s choice. In addition there is the declaration that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except by procedure established by law. The declaration is general and insists on legality of the action. The rights given by Article 22(1) and (2) are absolute in themselves and do not depend on other laws." 6. On the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor stated they are valid and beyond dispute. 7. The relevant provisions of law relating to remand is with the object to prevent a buse by police in matters relating to remand. The Court exercises discretionary functions in those matters on referring to the materials placed before it. The object of requiring the presence of the accused before the Magistrate for purpose of remand is only to enable him to make representation he wished to make in the matter. If a person wishes to have a Counsel of his choice, it is the duty of the Magistrate to allow him to have his Counsel and hear him. The accused has a right to be defended by an Advocate audit is not an indulgence, as, grant of a remand is essentially a judicial function. As observed by the Supreme Court in Ram Narain Singh v. State of Delhi and others. "This Court has often reiterated before that these who feel called upon to deprive other persons of their personal liberty in the discharge of what they conceive to be their duty, must strictly and scrupulously observe the forms and rules of the law." Where the personal liberty of a person is sought to be jeopardised, rules of law as well as the forms must be scrupulously followed. These provisions of law are necessary at dare to be strictly complied with the subordinate Court.