9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and by reasoned order remanded Respondent No. 1 to judicial custody till 3-9-1993. The bail plea made by Respondent No. 1 was rejected. This was done so as to give some time to the investigating agency to complete investigation and respondent No. 1 should not create hurdles by remaining free. 4. On 30th August, 1993, an application was filed by Respondent No. 1 for releasing him on bail. The same was taken up by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay for hearing on 1-9-1993 and the Respondent No. 1 came to be released on bail. It was observed as follows :- I have given serious consideration to the facts of the case and submission made by both sides. It is almost an admitted position that the investigation in this case is going on since the first week of August, 1993 and the statement of the accused are recorded. It appears that accused had attended the office several times and the correspondence is exchanged between the parties. In view of this I am of the opinion that the accused can be released on imposing certain conditions on him. 5. As far as the merit of the matter is concerned, I am declining the interfere with the impugned order. Considering the allegations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her stay the operation of the bail order for a few days or make the same operative from the future date to enable a party to approach the higher Court. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Magistrate possesses such power and can pass such order for good reasons. The learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Magistrate does not possess such power under Criminal Procedure Code. 10. The learned Advocate for the petitioner first relied upon Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code in support of his submission. The said section deals with rearrest of an accused and committing him to custody by the Court which has released him on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 437. In my opinion, it is not possible from the said sub-section to spell out that such a power is possessed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon certain observations of the Apex Court made in 1988 CriLJ 938 Usmanbhai D. Memon v. State of Gujarat. They are to the effect that there is no finality attached to an order passed by designated Court granting or refusing bail. Such an application for bail can always be renewe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1987CriLJ1061 , State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal J. Porwal. In the said case, the request for adducing additional evidence by the prosecution was rejected on the ground of delay. The apex Court held that the view was incorrect and observed as follows :- The community acting through the State and the Public Prosecutor is also entitled to justice. The cause of the Community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the Court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The Community or the State is not a persona non grata whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on persons profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear and criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessed by this Court or the apex Court. He also submitted that if stay is granted it amounts to practically reviewing the order passed as the accused is required to remain in detention. In support of this, he first relied upon, 1978 CriLJ 187, Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh. The question involved was whether a Magistrate can recall a case disposed of by judicial order. In that connection, it came to be held that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code empowering the Magistrate to review or recall a judicial order passed by him. It was held that there is no inherent power in the subordinate Courts. Similarly, in this connection, reliance is placed in 1986 CriLJ 1074, Maj. Genl. A. S. Gauraya v. S. N. Thakur. Again in the said case, the complaint came to be dismissed for default and question was whether the Magistrate is having inherent power to review this order of dismissal and restore the same. In that connection, it came to be observed that So far as the accused is concerned, dismissal of a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant or his discharge or acquittal on the same ground is a final order and in the absence of any specific provision in the Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... putting proper conditions and hence there is no power of stay that can be exercised by trial Court. I cannot accept this. For good reasons and in the interest of justice such power can always be reasonably exercised. 16. Section 309 falls in Chapter XXIV which deals with general provisions as to inquiries and trials. In my opinion, under Section 309(1) when the learned Magistrate can stay or adjourn the inquiry or the proceedings it includes the power to stay his own orders including bail order for good reasons. The power is incidental in nature and meant for properly regulating enquiry and trial. The underlying purpose is to hold the proceedings speedily and to punish the guilty effectively and early or release the innocent. It is not possible to hold that the Magistrate or trial Court is not having such power. He can give reasons and stay the same for a particular period or refuse to stay the same. Similarly, he can make the same operative for the given reasons after a particular period or refuse the prayer made on behalf of the party. We can visualise the cases where bail order is passed in serious offences involving smuggling or narcotic drugs. In many of these cases foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
