JUDGEMENT This application for bail has been pressed on behalf of Uma Kant alias Nangu only on the ground that no proper warrant remanding the applicant to jail custody was prepared and, therefore, the detention of the applicant in jail is illegal and consequently he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The applicant is being prosecuted under Sections 395/397 of the I.P.C. The prosecution is pending in the Court of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, the Sessions trial number being 123 of 1978. 2. In view of the fact that the validity of the custody warrant issued in the present case was challenged, the original custody warrant was sent for and was produced before me by Sri Abdi, the learned Deputy Government Advocate. This custody warrant instead of being on the pro forma prescribed by this Court under the General Rules, Criminal 1957, has been prepared on a plain sheet of paper. On the obverse side of this custody warrant the following writing appears : From the above it would be seen that on the obverse side of the warrant there is direction to the Jailor, Lucknow to receive the applicant in his custody and to produce him on the date mentioned on the reverse side of the warrant. On the reverse side of the warrant four vertical columns have been made. What is contained on the reverse side, is as follows :- (Against each remand there are initials of the Judge in the last column.) From the above it would be seen that in the first column the number of remands is mentioned while in the second column the date of the remand is given and in the third column the date on which the accused is to be produced before the Court, is entered. In the fourth column the Magistrate has put his initials. 3. The first argument of the learned counsel for the applicant was that a warrant for remand had to be on the pro forma prescribed by this Court and it could not be on a plain piece of paper. Since the case is pending in the Court of Session, S.309(2) of the Criminal P.C., 1973 will apply for granting remand to the applicant. Since the case is pending in the Court of Session, S.309(2) of the Criminal P.C., 1973 will apply for granting remand to the applicant. This Sub-Section reads as follows :- "(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody : Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time : Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing. Explanation 1.- If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand; Explanation 2.- The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused." Under the above provision the remand is to be granted by a warrant. There is no requirement under S.309 that the warrant of remand must be on the prescribed pro forma. It is true that this Court has prescribed a pro forma for granting remand to an under-trial but if the requirements of that pro forma have been substantially incorporated in the warrant of remand actually issued, in my opinion, that would be sufficient compliance with the requirements of law and the remand will not be invalidated merely because the prescribed pro forma had not been used and instead the remand warrant had been prepared on an ordinary piece of paper. 4. The next argument of the learned counsel was that if the prescribed pro forma was not used, the language employed in the prescribed pro forma should be exactly reproduced on the ordinary paper on which the warrant of remand is prepared. The learned counsel for the applicant produced the prescribed pro forma. The obverse side of this prescribed pro forma is divisible into two parts. The learned counsel for the applicant produced the prescribed pro forma. The obverse side of this prescribed pro forma is divisible into two parts. The left hand side of the pro forma contains the following in the English language :- "H.C.J.VIII-47 WARRANT FOR INTERMEDIATE CUSTODY ON REMAND (S. 344, Criminal P. C., 1898) The Jailor of Whereas of charged with and has been remanded to take his trial before the Court of You are hereby required to receive the said into your custody and produce him before the said Court as required on the reverse. Magistrate Dated day of " On the right hand side the Hindi translation of the English language appearing on the left side is contained. The reverse side of the pro forma contains 4 columns. The headings of these four columns are as follows :- 5. The warrant issued in the present case is in Hindi and, therefore, the English portion of the prescribed pro forma has not been reproduced. The purpose of prescribing the Hindi and English languages for issuing the warrant of remand was merely to provide alternatives for the language which may be employed while issuing order to the Jailor for admitting an accused to custody. Merely because the English version of the prescribed order has not been reproduced in the warrant issued in respect of the applicant it cannot be said that the warrant of remand becomes illegal. 6. So far as the reverse side of the warrant is concerned, all the four columns which are contained in the prescribed pro forma, have been reproduced. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, however, was that the notes appearing at the bottom of the prescribed pro forma have not been incorporated and, therefore, the warrant is invalid. At the bottom of the columns this language appears - "N. B. - The reason for remanding the accused must be given in the record. No accused may be remanded to custody for a term exceeding 15 days at a time (S.344, Criminal P.C., 1898). Thereafter, there are 7 serials against which informations have to be entered. The language appearing against the seven serials is as follows :- From the above it would be seen that all the four columns contained in the prescribed pro forma have been reproduced in the warrant used in respect of the applicant in the present case. Thereafter, there are 7 serials against which informations have to be entered. The language appearing against the seven serials is as follows :- From the above it would be seen that all the four columns contained in the prescribed pro forma have been reproduced in the warrant used in respect of the applicant in the present case. Only the writing appearing below the columns is missing. These writings are not material for the purpose of admitting an accused person to jail custody. The first note merely contains requirement for the Court to record the reasons for remand in the file. In the brackets the provision under which the remand is made, has been indicated. Obviously a Court which is passing an order of remand, is required to know the provision of law under which it has to exercise the power. So far as the information to be mentioned against the seven serials is concerned, the same has nothing to do with the custody of the accused persons. Against the seven serials certain information which may be relevant for the prosecuting agency, is required to be given. A custody warrant is an order by the Court to the Jailor to receive an accused person in his custody. Such warrant will not become invalid if the police officials entrusted with the execution of the warrant have not filled up the information which they are required to fill up against the seven serials. Therefore, omission to reproduce language of the seven serials in the custody warrant in question does not vitiate the custody of the applicant.. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that when the remand was issued on 16th November, 1981, the Magistrate did not put his signatures in the 4th column against serial No. 1. This argument is misconceived. A close examination of the original warrant revealed that over the initials of the Magistrate the applicant had put his signatures. The Magistrate's initials were, therefore, hidden under the signatures of the applicant which was more prominent. It was also argued by the learned counsel that although initials appeared in column No. 4 on the reverse side, the designation of the Presiding Officer of the Court had not been mentioned. In my opinion, designation of the Presiding Officer was not necessary to be mentioned on the reverse side because there was no such requirement. It was also argued by the learned counsel that although initials appeared in column No. 4 on the reverse side, the designation of the Presiding Officer of the Court had not been mentioned. In my opinion, designation of the Presiding Officer was not necessary to be mentioned on the reverse side because there was no such requirement. What appears on the reverse side, has to be read along with what appears on the obverse side. On the obverse side the designation of the Presiding Officer of the Court has been clearly mentioned. 8. This argument of the learned counsel, therefore, also fails. 9. In support of his argument that the custody warrant had to be strictly in compliance with law, the learned counsel relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Urooj Abbas v. state of U.P. (1973 Cri LJ 1458). In this case the prescribed pro forma was used but it had been torn vertically into two pieces and at a time only one piece was used for preparing the remand warrant. The consequence of the tearing of the prescribed pro forma into two pieces was that the Hindi language on the obverse side was separated from the English language. The further consequence of this tearing was that the four columns prescribed by the pro forma were not available for use while preparing the custody warrant. The custody warrant which was used in the case of Urooj Abbas, contained only columns 3 and 4. In column 3, in which under the prescribed pro forma, the date on which accused was to be produced was required to be mentioned, the date on which the accused had actually been produced, was indicated and in column No. 4 where the Magistrate was required to sign. the date on which the accused was to come next, was mentioned. On account of these discrepancies the Full Bench held that the entries read with headings became meaningless. It was on this basis alone that it was held that proper custody warrant had not been issued against Urooj Abbas. A significant observation was made by the Full Bench in paragraph 12 on page 1463 - "...... On account of these discrepancies the Full Bench held that the entries read with headings became meaningless. It was on this basis alone that it was held that proper custody warrant had not been issued against Urooj Abbas. A significant observation was made by the Full Bench in paragraph 12 on page 1463 - "...... We may however add that if the warrant Form in full had been made use of and the entries in the columns on the reverse had been duly made, then the warrant upon reading both sides of the Form, would in spite of the defect mentioned earlier, have amounted to a substantial compliance with the requirements of S.344(1A) since the intention of remand would have been fairly clear......" In the earlier part of the judgement the Full Bench pointed out the defects in the pro forma prescribed by this Court. However, the Full Bench was of the opinion that if substantial compliance is made with the provision of S.344 of the Criminal P.C. in preparing the custody warrant, the custody would not be vitiated. In the present case as observed hereinabove, all the four columns have been properly filled up. Against each remand the Presiding Officer of the Court has put his signatures. The direction to the Jailor is in clear terms. The said direction contained on the obverse side mentions the case number and also the sections under which the applicant is being prosecuted. Thereafter, the Jailor, Lucknow is required to receive the applicant in his custody and to produce him on the dates mentioned on the reverse side. In my opinion, the authority relied upon by the learned counsel is of no assistance to the applicant. 10. Another authority relied upon by the learned counsel is a Division Bench decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 187 of 1974, Ravindra Nath Rai v. State of U.P. decided on 29-3-74. The position of the warrant issued against Ravindra Nath Rai was the same as of the warrant issued against Urooj Abbas (supra). Here also the prescribed pro forma had been torn into two pieces. Initially one piece was used and after the same was exhausted, the second piece was attached to it. Thus in Ravindra Nath's case also all the four columns on the reverse side were not available for preparing the remand warrant. Here also the prescribed pro forma had been torn into two pieces. Initially one piece was used and after the same was exhausted, the second piece was attached to it. Thus in Ravindra Nath's case also all the four columns on the reverse side were not available for preparing the remand warrant. This authority also, therefore, is of no assistance to the applicant. 11. The last authority cited by the learned counsel is 1978 All Cri C 58 : (1978 Cri LJ 541), Sayeed Ahmad v. State. In this case it was held that a warrant was required for remanding an accused to jail custody and the jail custody could not be valid if no warrant had been prepared and addressed to the Jailor. The warrant that was relied upon in this case, has been reproduced in the last paragraph of column 1 at page 59. This warrant, it appears, was not addressed to any Jailor and it also did not contain any direction of the Jailor to receive the accused person in his custody. Sub-Sec. (2) of S.309 requires the remand to be made by a warrant. Obviously, a warrant has to be addressed to the authority competent to receive the accused person. Obviously, also the warrant must contain an order or direction to that competent authority to receive the accused person in custody. Where both these requirements are wanting, the paper relied upon as warrant cannot be said to conform to the requirements of Section 309 and cannot, therefore, be relied upon as a remand warrant. Since in the present case the applicant is detained on a proper direction issued by the Court to the Jailor, Lucknow, the detention of the applicant cannot be said to be contrary to law. The warrant complies completely with S.309(2), Cr. P.C. and substantially with the pro forma prescribed by this Court. 12. In view of the above, the application is rejected. Application dismissed.