Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India the petitioner, Dr. Shyam Bihari Sinha, who at the relevant time was the Joint Regional Director, animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi, has prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his detention in custody pursuant to the illegal orders passed by the Special Judge (Annexures 6 and 8)is not justified. It has, therefore, been prayed that the aforesaid impugned orders be quashed, and the petitioner be set at liberty. 2. It appears that between the years 1977 and 1996 on the basis of fake allotment orders crores of rupees were withdrawn from different treasuries of the state of Bihar for payment to suppliers who had never supplied goods to the State of Bihar, and in conspiracy with the officers of the Government of Bihar the suppliers on the basis of fake supplies withdrew large sums of money from different treasuries. When this matter came to light several first information reports were registered at different places numbered about 41. The petitioner was named as an accused in some of the first information reports, while in some other cases his complicity was suspected on the basis of the investigation carried out by the central Bureau of Investigation under orders of the Supreme Court. In several cases charge-sheet has been filed before the Court, and the petitioner in some of them has been sent up for trial. In the instant case the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 9-12-1996 passed in Special Case No.30 of 1996 and order dated 2-1-1997 in Special Case No.28 of 1996 passed by the Special Judge (C. B. I.), Animal Husbandry, Patna. By the aforesaid impugned orders, on the basis of charge-sheets filed by the C. B. I. , the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of various offences mentioned in the charge-sheets, and in view of the fact that the petitioner was already in custody in connection with other cases, issued a production warrant for his production in the aforesaid cases on the dates mentioned in the order taking cognizance. 3. The facts, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was arrested on 16-5-1996 in connection with special Case No.33 of 1996. Though the petitioner was not named in the first information report, his complicity was suspected. 3. The facts, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was arrested on 16-5-1996 in connection with special Case No.33 of 1996. Though the petitioner was not named in the first information report, his complicity was suspected. By order dated 17-8-1996 he was admitted to bail, and though a chargesheet was subsequently submitted in the case on 13-2-1997, the petitioner was not sent up for trial. The petitioner was shown to be an accused in several cases arising out of the same transaction. Reference is made to Special Case No.43 of 1996 in which an allegation was made against one sri Braj Bhusan Prasad, Accounts Officer, a. H. D. , Patna, who is alleged to have committed forgery and issued fake allotment letters during his tenure between the years 1982 and 1996. It was alleged that he had done so in conspiracy with other officers of the Department. In the said case the petitioner was released on bail on 27-9-1996, as has been shown in Annexure-4, which is a list of cases in which the complicity of the petitioner is suspected. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was suspected in large number of cases, and his judicial custody was transferred from one case to another illegally. In Special Case no.30 of 1996 a charge-sheet (Annexure-5)was filed on 30th November, 1996. On the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet the impugned order (Annexure-6) was passed on 9-12-1996, whereby the learned Special judge took cognizance of the offences mentioned in the order and issued a production warrant for the production of the petitioner in the said case on 20th december, 1996, since the petitioner was already in custody in connection with some other cases. Similarly, charge-sheet was submitted in Special Case No.28 of 1996 (Annexure-7), and on the basis of the said charge-sheet the learned Special Judge took cognizance by the impugned order dated 2-1-1997 and issued production warrant for the production of the petitioner in this case on 17-1-1997. Both the orders mention that the petitioner was in jail custody in connection with some other cases. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Counsel appearing on behalf of the C. B. I, stated that the petitioner was in custody in connection with Special Case No.38 of 1996 in which charge-sheet was submitted on 16-10-1996, and he was remanded to custody. Both the orders mention that the petitioner was in jail custody in connection with some other cases. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Counsel appearing on behalf of the C. B. I, stated that the petitioner was in custody in connection with Special Case No.38 of 1996 in which charge-sheet was submitted on 16-10-1996, and he was remanded to custody. It has not been disputed before us that at the time when the impugned orders were passed the petitioner was lodged in jail in connection with some other cases. 4. It is not necessary at this stage to refer to the facts of the different cases in which the petitioner is an accused, because that will be considered while dealing with the second submission urged on behalf of the petitioner. At this stage I may only notice that counsel for the petitioner has urged before us only three submissions. He firstly submitted that issuance of what is known as production warrant is unknown to law. Secondly, it was submitted that the charge-sheets filed in the said two cases, namely, Special Case Nos.28 of 1996 and 30 of 1996 were not in law charge-sheets as they themselves showed that the investigation was still continuing. It was, therefore, submitted that the said charge sheets could not be considered to be a police report within the meaning of the said term in Sec.2 (r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to justify the order taking cognizance under Sec.173 of the Code, Lastly, it was submitted that the successive remands ordered by the special Judge were wholly unjustified, and that these two cases as also Special Case no.43 of 1996 in which the petitioner had been granted bail, related to the same transaction. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner having been granted bail in Special Case No.43 of 1996, there was no justification for detaining the petitioner in custody in Special Case Nos.28 and 30 of 1996, since all the cases related to the same transaction and were not separate and distinct cases. 5. The first and the second submission may be taken up together for consideration. The charge-sheet in Special case No.30 of 1996 dated 30th November, 1996 is Annexure-5 and Special Case No.28 of 1996 is Annexure-7. 5. The first and the second submission may be taken up together for consideration. The charge-sheet in Special case No.30 of 1996 dated 30th November, 1996 is Annexure-5 and Special Case No.28 of 1996 is Annexure-7. In Annexure-5 it is stated that the petitioner and two others, apart from the named accused participated in the conspiracy and in pursuance of the said conspiracy allotment letters were procured by deceitful means with a view to cheating the State of Bihar showing fictitious purchase of medicines. There are six named accused in the first information report, but the complicity of the remaining three accused including the petitioner transpired in course of investigation of the case. After stating the facts of the case, and the facts discovered in course of investigation it is stated as follows in the charge-sheet:- "the investigation has therefore been able to fix up the conspiracy hatched by Dr. S. B. Sinha and Shri Mahendra Prasad actually executed through shri Braj Bhushan prasad, Shri Kashi Nath Singh and Shri K. K. Sahay and also with the help of suppliers as mentioned above. The forgery and falsification of accounts and the omission and commission on the part of accused persons have thus been amply proved in course of investigation. . . . . . . Hence, this charge-sheet is submitted with a prayer to take cognizance of the same and make them face the trial for the above offences. The necessary sanctions for prosecution against S/shri Kashi Nath Singh, Braj bhushan Prasad, Krishna Kumar Sahay, shyam Bihari Sinha and Girish Kumar Sinha will be submitted to the Court in due course as soon as the same are obtained from the competent authorities. Supplementary charge-sheet will follow in case further evidence is found in respect of persons whose complicity in this case transpires. " 6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge-sheet itself states that a supplementary charge-sheet will follow in case further evidence is found in respect of persons whose complicity in this case transpires. It is, therefore, apparent that the investigation was not complete and the chargesheet was not a charge-sheet in the eye of law. According to him, it was not even a police report on the basis of which cognizance could be taken by the Special Judge under Sec.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is, therefore, apparent that the investigation was not complete and the chargesheet was not a charge-sheet in the eye of law. According to him, it was not even a police report on the basis of which cognizance could be taken by the Special Judge under Sec.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the other hand, Counsel for the c. B. I. submitted that the charge-sheet itself in clear terms states that the investigation had revealed the existence of a conspiracy hatched by the petitioner and others and the forgery and falsification of accounts and omission and commission on the part of accused persons had been amply proved in course of investigation. He, therefore, submitted that so far as the petitioner and other accused persons named in the charge-sheet are concerned, the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet submitted by the C. B. I. is a police report on the basis of which cognizance can be taken. It is always open to the investigating agency to file a supplementary charge-sheet if new facts are discovered, since there is no bar in law to the filing of supplementary charge-sheet. In the chargesheet all that is stated is that in case further evidence is found a supplementary charge-sheet will be submitted. . This does not lead to the inference that the charge-sheet submitted against the accused persons mentioned in the charge-sheet is not complete. 7. In my view, the submission of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the C. B. I, must prevail. Counsel for the c. B. I, rightly placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in air 1995 SC 231 , State of Maharashtra V/s. S. V. Dongre. Dealing with a similar situation the Court held: the purpose of the submission of the police report with the details as mentioned above, is to enable the Magistrate to satisfy himself, whether on the basis of the report and the material filed alongwith the police report, a case for taking cognizance has been made out or not. After applying his mind to the police report and the material submitted therewith, if the Magistrate is satisfied that cognizance of the offence is required to be taken, he shall proceed further in accordance with the - provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure. Sec.190 (1) (b), Cr. After applying his mind to the police report and the material submitted therewith, if the Magistrate is satisfied that cognizance of the offence is required to be taken, he shall proceed further in accordance with the - provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure. Sec.190 (1) (b), Cr. P. C. provides that a Magistrate has the power to take cognizance upon a police report of such facts as are provided therein on being satisfied that the case is a fit case for taking cognizance of the offence. Therefore, if the police report and the material filed therewith is sufficient to satisfy the magistrate that he should take cognizance, his power is not fettered by the label which the investigating agency chooses to give to the report submitted by it under Sec.173 (2), Cr. PC. Merely, because the prosecution had filed an application, after submission of the charge-sheet, seeking permission to file "supplementary chargesheet", it could not affect the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance, if he was otherwise satisfied from the material placed before him alongwith the charge-sheet that cognizance of the offence was required to be taken. It is the jurisdiction of the magistrate and Magistrate alone to decide whether the material placed by the prosecution with the report (charge-sheet) was sufficient to take cognizance or not. The power of the Magistrate to take cognizance cannot be controlled by the investigating agency, whose duty is only to investigate and place the facts and the evidence before the magistrate. " 8. In the instant case the position is identical. The mere fact that the investigating officer had mentioned in the charge-sheet that a supplementary charge-sheet may follow if further facts were discovered, did not affect the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to take cognizance, if he was otherwise satisfied from the material placed before him alongwith the charge-sheet that the cognizance of the offences was required to be taken. The learned Special Judge in his impugned order dated 9-12-1996 (Annexure-6) has mentioned that he had perused the charge-sheet and the case diary, and he was satisfied that the facts found prima facie constituted the offences mentioned in the order. He also perused the sanction order accorded by the competent authorities and thereafter proceeded to take cognizance of the offences mentioned therein against the accused persons named in column No.1 of the charge-sheet. Similar is the case with Annexure-8. He also perused the sanction order accorded by the competent authorities and thereafter proceeded to take cognizance of the offences mentioned therein against the accused persons named in column No.1 of the charge-sheet. Similar is the case with Annexure-8. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Special Judge did not apply his mind to the facts as disclosed in the chargesheet and the evidence collected in the case diary. Only after the Special Judge was satisfied that prima facie a case had been made out, on the basis of the facts collected during the course of investigation, he took cognizance of the various offences mentioned in his order, and issued processes against the accused persons mentioned therein. I, therefore, find no illegality in the orders passed by the Special Judge nor do I find any illegality in his action taking cognizance on the basis of the charge sheets filed in the two cases. The submission of Counsel for the petitioner that the chargesheets are incomplete and do not constitute a police report must be rejected, so far as the petitioner and others named in the charge-sheet are concerned, the same is complete subject to the right of the investigating agency recognised by law to file a supplementary charge-sheet if new facts are discovered later. 9. The next limb of the argument is that the Special Judge could not direct production of the petitioner by issuance of a production warrant. It was submitted that a production warrant is unknown to law. Counsel for the C. B. I. , on the other hand, submitted that the argument is misconceived. He drew our attention to Sec.267 of the Code of Criminal procedure and submitted that the aforesaid section makes it abundantly clear that whenever in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the code, it appears to a Criminal Court that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceeding against him, the Court may make an order requiring the officer-in-charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court fpr the purpose of such proceeding. He, therefore, submitted thai since the presence of the petitioner was required in the instant case as the Court had taken cognizance of the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet and was to issue process against the accused, his presence could be secured only by issuing a production warrant requiring the officer-in-charge of the prison to produce the petitioner before him. If the petitioner was at large, the court may have issued summons or warrant against him as it considered appropriate. When the accused was already in custody his presence could be secured only by issuing a production warrant requiring the officer-in-charge of the jail to produce the accused before the Court. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, reported in 1995 Cri LJ 3505, Ranjeet Singh V/s. State of u. P. It was held in that case that the words of Sec.267 (1) (a) were compendious and included proceedings encompassing all stages and have in their fold remand proceedings and even proceedings of an investigation. In that case the presence of the applicant was required for the purposes of remand which included police remand or for the purposes of investigation. So far as Sec.269 of the Code is concerned, the same is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, reliance placed upon Section 269 is of no avail to the petitioner. It was submitted that in the instant case itself at a later stage the petitioner could not be produced on account of his indisposition. When such a situation arises, law will take care of. such situations, but that by itself is not to say that a Court, which requires the presence of an accused for the purpose of any proceeding against him under the Code, cannot require the jail authority to produce the accused before him if he is already in custody. The submission that the Special Judge could not direct the production of the petitioner in the two cases, must, therefore, be rejected. 10. I shall now consider the second submission urged on behalf of the petitioner. It was submitted that Special case No.43 of 1996 in connection with which the petitioner was suspected but was later granted bail is the same as Special case Nos.28 and 30 of 1996. According to him all the three cases arise out of the same transaction and, therefore, constitute the same occurrence. It was submitted that Special case No.43 of 1996 in connection with which the petitioner was suspected but was later granted bail is the same as Special case Nos.28 and 30 of 1996. According to him all the three cases arise out of the same transaction and, therefore, constitute the same occurrence. They have only been technically split up into three cases to harass the petitioner. If the petitioner has been released on bail in Special Case No.43 of 1996, his detention on the basis of remand in the other two cases is not justified in law. There cannot be successive remands in the same case beyond the period prescribed by law and hence there could be no justification for the successive remand of the petitioner in these two cases. 11. The submission proceeds on the assumption that by the impugned orders the petitioner has been detained in custody. The assumption is erroneous. The orders impugned in the instant writ petition are the orders taking cognizance of various offences mentioned therein. As to the issuance of process, the Court taking notice of the fact that the petitioner is in custody in connection with another case, has directed issuance of production warrant exercising its power under Section 267 of the Code. The petitioner is, therefore, detained in custody not on account of the impugned orders passed by the Special judge. He continues to remain in custody on account of the orders passed by the court in another case, and that order is not the subject-matter of challenge before this Court. The orders under "section 267 of the Code passed by the Special Judge in the two cases in hand were to secure the presence of the accused in connection with these cases. If the petitioner has been technically arrested later in connection with these two cases, or if any order of remand has been passed subsequently in these cases, such orders have not been challenged in this writ petition and, therefore, this Court is not expected to examine the validity of such orders. So far as the impugned orders are concerned, the detention of the petitioner in custody is not pursuant to the impugned orders. Even if the impugned orders were quashed, the petitioner will still remain in custody in connection with another case. 12. So far as the impugned orders are concerned, the detention of the petitioner in custody is not pursuant to the impugned orders. Even if the impugned orders were quashed, the petitioner will still remain in custody in connection with another case. 12. The submission that all the three cases, namely, Special Case No.43/96, special Case No.28/96 and Special Case no.30/96 arise out of the same transaction and constitute one occurrence is also not acceptable. The first information report of special Case No.43/96 is Annexure-1 which was registered at Sachiwalaya P. S. In the first information report it is stated that one Braj Bhusan Prasad was posted as accounts and Budget Officer in the animal Husbandry Department for the last three or four years before his retirement. It had come to light that he was sending false and forged letters of allotment to the officers of the said Department posted in the districts. On such allotment letters the despatch numbers and the file numbers were wrongly mentioned, which was discovered when some of the allotment letters were received by the Department from the districts. On the basis of such allotment letters issued by him in conspiracy with others, crores of rupees had been illegally withdrawn from the various treasuries and, therefore, a case was made out against the aforesaid braj Bhusan Prasad for which action in accordance with law may be taken. The aforesaid report was lodged by the Deputy Director, Headquarters on 13th February, 19%. It will be seen that the said report relates to the conduct of braj Bhusan Prasad, who was found to have issued fake allotment letters on the basis of which illegal withdrawals were made from the treasuries. There are no other particulars relating to any other person. The report is primarily against the accounts and Budget Officer on issuing fake allotment letters. No other accused is named in the report. 13. So far as Special Case No.30 of 1996 is concerned, the first information report was lodged by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 3rd February 1996 at the Sadar Police Station, Hazaribagh. The report is primarily against the accounts and Budget Officer on issuing fake allotment letters. No other accused is named in the report. 13. So far as Special Case No.30 of 1996 is concerned, the first information report was lodged by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 3rd February 1996 at the Sadar Police Station, Hazaribagh. The said report mentions that pursuant to the message received from the office of the additional Finance Commissioner, as regards withdrawals made by the Animal and Fisheries Department during the months of November 1995 and December 1995, the matter was enquired into and it was found that under Principal Head 2403 animal Husbandry, large withdrawals had taken place and there was unprecedented enhancement of withdrawals under the said head. The first information report refers to the sealing of various offices and mentions about the appointment of a committee to examine the matters. The report refers to various items of withdrawals and the manner in which these withdrawals took place. They relate to particular amounts covered by particular allotment orders, bills etc. It also mentioned the fact that though the goods were to be supplied by recognised Companies, in reality the goods were said to have been supplied by local Companies of Patna and Ranchi. In fact, even these Companies had not supplied the goods and on the basis of fake supplies, huge payments were made to them. The Committee had found that all the documents produced in connection with such supplies were fabricated documents. The report to various other details relating to the Stores where no medicine was found. The examination of the evidence discovered by the Committee disclosed that entries in the Stores were unreliable and mere paper entries. Absence of medicines in the Stores also made out a case for embezzlement. There are several named accused in the first information report including the Regional Director of Animal Husbandry, the Assistant disease Research Officer-cum-Store keeper and the Accountant in the office of the Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, hazaribagh. This is in addition to Braj bhushan Prasad, Accounts and Budget Officer and some of the suppliers. The first information report is a detailed report dealing with the manner in which fake supplies were made and huge amounts were withdrawn by the concerned officers between april 1995 and December 1995. The illegal withdrawals have said to have taken place from the treasury at Hazaribagh. 14. The first information report is a detailed report dealing with the manner in which fake supplies were made and huge amounts were withdrawn by the concerned officers between april 1995 and December 1995. The illegal withdrawals have said to have taken place from the treasury at Hazaribagh. 14. Special Case No.28 of 19% arises out of a report lodged by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh at the Sadar Police station Hazaribagh on 10th March, 1996. The report relates to the withdrawals made in the year 1993-94 and there are as many as eight accused persons named in the first information report. This report is also a detailed report as the report in Special Case No.30/% and deal with various aspects of the matter in detail naming the firms which were said to have made the supplies. 15. Having regard to the allegations contained in the first information report in each of the cases, it is not possible to hold that the three cases constitute one offence and, therefore, are parts of the same transaction. So far as Special Case Nos.28 and 30 of 1996 are concerned, though they relate to the district of Hazaribagh, they relate to different periods and the accused persons are different. There is similarity of facts. These cases, however, are quite different from Special Case No.43 of 1996. In the said case the allegation is only against the then Accounts and Budget Officer of A. H. D. Department, who had been signing false and fabricated allotment orders to the officers of the Department in the districts. On the basis of such false and fabricated allotment orders huge withdrawals were made. This case does not at all refer the manner in which the supplies were made by different suppliers and how payments were made to them without supplies being received. The report also does not deal with the withdrawal of huge amounts from the different treasuries. No other accused has been mentioned by name in the first information report. It cannot be said on a reading of the first information report in Special Case No.43 of 1996 that it covers all transactions which were subsequently discovered in connection with other cases on specific reports lodged at different places in different police stations. No other accused has been mentioned by name in the first information report. It cannot be said on a reading of the first information report in Special Case No.43 of 1996 that it covers all transactions which were subsequently discovered in connection with other cases on specific reports lodged at different places in different police stations. It is not possible at this stage on the basis of the material on record to hold that all the three cases constitute one occurrence and, therefore, form part of one transaction. In any event, since the orders impugned in this writ petition are not orders of remand, even if it were held that all the three cases constitute one transaction, no relief can be granted to the petitioner who is in custody in connection with some other case. 16. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner particularly highlighting his poor health condition. It was submitted by Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner requires constant medical attention and treatment on account of his serious ailment, and this is not possible if he is kept confined in custody. It was, therefore, submitted that on this ground as well this Court may consider the release of the petitioner on humanitarian consideration. I am not persuaded to entertain this plea in a habeas corpus petition. The petitioner may, if so advised, bring all relevant facts to the notice of the Special Judge, and I have no doubt that the Special Judge will pass appropriate orders, so that proper medical treatment can be given to the petitioner. I wish to express no opinion on this aspect of the matter, and leave the petitioner to seek relief before the appropriate forum in an appropriate proceeding. 17. Before parting with the judgment i may notice the preliminary objection which has been raised by Counsel for the c. B. I. It was submitted by him that this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable, because the petitioner had been detained in custody pursuant to a lawful order passed by a Court of law. In such a case a writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable and it was open to the petitioner to pray for quashing of the impugned orders under Sec.482 of the Code of criminal Procedure. In such a case a writ of habeas corpus was not maintainable and it was open to the petitioner to pray for quashing of the impugned orders under Sec.482 of the Code of criminal Procedure. Authorities were cited in support of the proposition that a writ of habeas corpus will not lie under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, if alternative remedy under the code of Criminal Procedure was provided. Learned Counsel for the petitioner replied by saying that, at best, he may be asked to convert this writ petition into an application under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since this Court had jurisdiction to deal with such an application as well, it would be only a technical formality and would result in further delay. He submitted that the submissions urged by him were such as required consideration by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Having regard to the submissions urged on behalf of the parties, we had permitted Counsel for the petitioner to address before us only those submissions which can be entertained by this Court in writ jurisdiction. 18. However, I find no merit in either of the submissions urged before us by learned Counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Petition Dismissed.