9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Criminal Revision Application. 2. Service of Notice to the Petitioners. 3. Continuation of Police Custody Remand (PCR). Summary: 1. Maintainability of the Criminal Revision Application: The primary issue was whether the Criminal Revision Application against the order refusing Police Custody Remand (PCR) was maintainable. The Petitioners argued that the order was interlocutory and thus not subject to revision u/s 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in *State represented by Inspector of Police vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate, (2004) 5 SCC 729*. However, the Court referred to the judgments in *Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47* and *Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185*, which clarified that the nature of the order determines its finality. The Court concluded that the order refusing PCR was final as it precluded the State from filing further applications for police custody, thus making the revision application maintainable. 2. Service of Notice to the Petitioners: The Petitioners contended that they were not served notice by the State, making the Sessions Court's order ex parte and in violation of natural justice. The Court noted that the advocate for the accused had appeared before the Sessions Court and had given an undertaking to appear, thus negating the need for separate service of notice. The Court found no merit in the Petitioners' argument regarding the lack of service of notice. 3. Continuation of Police Custody Remand (PCR): The Petitioners argued that since the initial 15-day period u/s 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code had expired, the Magistrate could not reconsider the grant of police custody. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in *Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141*. The Court distinguished the facts of the present case, noting that the Petitioners were arrested on 09/11/2010, produced before the Magistrate on 10/11/2010, and granted bail on the same day. Since the Petitioners did not remain in custody for more than one day, the 15-day period did not continue to operate. The Court held that the Sessions Court could direct the Magistrate to reconsider the application for PCR if the 15-day period had not expired. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Sessions Court's order. Conclusion: Both Criminal Applications were dismissed. The Court clarified that the effect of the bail order, which was not challenged by the State, should be considered by the Magistrate on merits and in accordance with the law. The Petitioners were directed to appear before the Magistrate on 03/01/2011, either personally or through their advocate, and the Magistrate was instructed to decide the application within six weeks.
|
