9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchased in the name of the accused and their family members and, therefore, the complainant has been deceived and that the accused have committed an offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust as also other offences which are mentioned in the complaint. 4. Petitioners - accused came to be arrested on 09/11/2010 and they were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 10/11/2010 and an application for Police Custody Remand (PCR) was made for the purpose of investigation. The learned Magistrate, by his order of the same date, was pleased to observe that dispute in question appeared to be a civil dispute and, therefore, was of the view that it was not necessary to grant police custody and, therefore, transferred the accused to judicial custody. Thereafter, Petitioners filed application for releasing them on bail before the Magistrate on the same day and the learned Magistrate was pleased to grant bail to the Petitioners. The State preferred Criminal Revision Application in the Sessions Court and the following reliefs were claimed by the State in the said Criminal Revision Application:- (1) That the impugned order dt. 10/11/2010 rejecting the prayer for Poli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng expired, the learned Magistrate could not have reconsidered the question of grant of police remand. In support of the said submission, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141. He invited my attention to the relevant paragraphs in the said judgment wherein the Supreme Court has considered the question as to whether after expiry of initial period of 15 days a person could still be remanded to police custody by the Magistrate before whom he was produced. He submitted that the Apex Court in no uncertain terms had held that the said period would begin from the order of remand and it was first 15 days after the said date which had to be calculated. He also submitted that the correct course of action for the State was to have filed an application for cancellation of bail by filing an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in this Court. He submitted that the State, admittedly, has not filed the application for cancellation of bail. 7. Shri Desai the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the original complainant submitted that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e original complainant. 9. After having heard both the parties at length, I am afraid, it is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners for the following reasons. 10. So far as the question of maintainability of the revision application is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Madhu Limaye, AIR 1978 SC 47 (supra) has observed in paragraphs 9 and 10 as under:- 9. In most of the cases decided during several decades the inherent power of the High Court has been invoked for the quashing of a criminal proceeding on one ground or the other. Sometimes the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court has also been resorted to for the same kind of relief by challenging the order taking cognizance or issuing processes or framing charge on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and proceed with the trial, that the issuance of process was wholly illegal or void, or that no charge could be framed as no offence was made out on the allegations made or the evidence adduced in Court. In the background aforesaid, we proceed to examine as to what is the correct position of law after the introduction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower by the High Court. But such cases would be few and far between. The High Court must exercise the inherent power very sparingly. One such case would be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction. Take for example a case where a prosecution is launched under the Prevention of Corruption Act without a sanction, then the trial of the accused will be without jurisdiction and even after his acquittal a second trial after proper sanction will not be barred on the doctrine of Autrefois Acquit. Even assuming, although we shall presently show that it is not so, that in such a case an order of the Court taking cognizance or issuing processes is an interlocutory order, does it stand to reason to say that inherent power of the High Court cannot be exercised for stopping the criminal proceeding as early as possible, instead of harassing the accused upto the end? The answer is obvious that the bar will not operate to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and/or to secure, the ends of justice. The label of the petition filed by an aggrieved party is immaterial. The High Court can examine the matter i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) in support of his submission. In my view, ratio of the judgment in the case of Anupam J. Kulkarni, (1992) 3 SCC 141, would not apply to the facts of the present case. In the said case, facts were that on the basis of the material which was available Shri Kulkarni was arrested on 4/10/1991 and was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 05/10/1991. On the request of CBI, Shri Kularni was remanded to judicial custody till 11/10/1991. On 10/10/1991, a test identification parade was arranged but Shri Kulkarni refused to cooperate and his refusal was recorded by the Munsif Magistrate concerned. On 11/10/1991, application was moved by the Investigating Officer seeking police custody of Shri Kulkarni which application was allowed. However, in the meantime, Shri Kulkarni was taken to hospital and he remained confined on the ground of illness upto 21/10/1991 and, thereafter, upto 29/10/1991 he was remanded to judicial custody by the Magistrate and was sent to jail. Since during this period he cold not be remanded to police custody, an application was made by the Investigating Officer seeking police custody which was refused by the learned Magistrate. A revision app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to grant police custody for a period of 15 days and it cannot be said that the said period would continue to operate even though he is not in custody after the first date. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, therefore, in my view, is unacceptable. If the higher court reconsiders the order of the Magistrate refusing to grant police custody and during that period, period of 15 days is not over, the higher court can always give a direction to the Magistrate to reconsider the said aspect of granting police custody. In the present case had the Petitioners continued to remain in jail custody after a period of 15 days, then the submission made by Shri Chitnis the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners would have been correct but since they were released on bail on 10/11/2010, there was a break in the said period since the Petitioners were not in custody either of the police or of the Magistrate. Under these circumstances, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Sessions Court. 14. Both the Criminal Applications are accordingly dismissed. 15. It is clarified that since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
