Power to require attendance of prisoners
Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with power to require attendance of prisoners. Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court,- (a) 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 proceedings against him, or (b) The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court,-
(a) 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 proceedings against him, or
(b) that it is necessary for the ends of justice to examine such person as a witness,
the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court for answering to the charge or for the purpose of such proceeding or, as the case may be, for giving evidence.
(2) Where an order under sub-section (1) is made by a Magistrate of the second class, it shall not be forwarded to, or acted upon by, the officer in charge of the prison unless it is countersigned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom such Magistrate is subordinate.
(3) Every order submitted for countersigning under sub-section (2) shall be accompanied by a statement of the facts which, in the opinion of Magistrate, render the order necessary, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom it is submitted may, after considering such statement, decline to countersign the order.
268.
Power of State Government to exclude certain persons from operation ofsection
Section 267, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 302 Power to require attendance of prisoners Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 269 CrPC applies only to orders under Section 267 CrPC and not to general judicial orders directing production of an accused. The provision is designed to prevent disruption of ongoing trial or committal proceedings, not to confer a right on prisoners to avoid production in other jurisdictions. An accused facing trial in multiple courts cannot use one pending trial as an excuse to avoid appearing in other cases, as this would delay justice in other matters and prevent speedy disposal of cases. The CrPC must be interpreted pragmatically to ensure meaningful implementation and not as a procedure that creates impediments to criminal proceedings.
On this section: Section 267 deals with production of persons in custody before courts. Section 269 is an adjunct to Section 267 and provides exceptions when prison officers may abstain from carrying out court orders for production.
-
Md.shahabuddin vs The State of Bihar& ORS.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Denial of production of an accused in a case for the limited purpose of remand, subject to genuine contingencies under Section 269 Cr.P.C., amounts to denial of both the right to seek bail and the benefits of rights enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code. An accused has an equal right to be tried speedily in all cases in which he is an accused. Section 269 Cr.P.C. does not provide unfettered power to abstain from executing production warrants; it applies only to genuine contingencies such as sickness, infirmity, or genuine time constraints. Where intervening days exist between court dates, jail authorities must facilitate production for limited remand purposes. The court must balance the right to speedy trial in one case with the right to be produced in another case, and indefinite denial of production warrants for extended periods is not justified under Section 269 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Provides for issuance of production warrants by courts; cited as the basis for the Muzaffarpur court's authority to issue production warrants
-
O.p. Mishra vs The State Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prison superintendent cannot be held liable for non-production of an under-trial prisoner when the prisoner is detained in another state's jail by judicial order of a competent court. The duty to produce a prisoner under Sections 267 and 270 of the Criminal Procedure Code is limited to prisoners within the superintendent's custody and control. When a prisoner is detained outside the superintendent's jurisdiction by judicial order, the superintendent is not guilty of non-compliance or dereliction of duty, and the court must appreciate the circumstances that make compliance impossible.
On this section: Power to require attendance of prisoners - The court has power to order the prison officer to produce a person confined in prison for answering charges or for examination as witness. The court applied this section to establish that while courts have the power to issue production orders, the prison officer's duty is limited to producing prisoners within their custody.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Therefore, the complicity of the applicant is prima facie made out. Having regard to the antecedents of the applicant, he does not deserve to be released on bail. 7. Evidently, the custody of the applicant in the instant crime was obtained by seeking production warrant under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The only material pressed against the applicant is the alleged discovery made by the applicant leading to the recovery of the property of which the first informant was allegedly robbed of. 8. The first informant had reported two unknown persons had robbed him of. Prima …
-
… Date : 11 December 2023. Page No. 1 of 13 11 December 2023 Order : By the present application, the applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated 25 February 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai, disallowing the prayer of the applicant for an order under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'CrPC'), for the production of respondent No.1/original accused in a case being investigated by the applicant. 2. The record indicates that a case has been registered as CBI/EOB/Mumbai being RC 0682017 E 0004 on 13.5.2017 against the Directors and proprietors of …
-
… He has not answered the basic issue that production warrant could not have been served without the authority of the concerned Jailer or the Officer of the concerned Jail. It could not have been executed at a public place or at the residence of the accused. Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with power to require attendance of prisoners.Sub Section (1) of Section 267 provides that whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court,- (a) that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought …
Questions about Section 267
What have the courts held on Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi (13 Feb 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Section 267 deals with production of persons in custody before courts. Section 269 is an adjunct to Section 267 and provides exceptions when prison officers may abstain from carrying out court orders for production. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2002 to 2013.
How do I find court cases under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 267, section 267 CRPC, section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mustafa Usman Lande vs Uoi (13 Feb 2013).
What should I read with Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 302 (Power to require attendance of prisoners), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 267, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.