9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FC), Ahmedabad (Rural). The said application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate (FC), vide order dtd. 1/11/2004. Immediately on 5/11/2004, a Revision application was preferred by the State before the Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) against the rejection of remand by the Judicial Magistrate (FC). Upon hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) granted remand of the present applicant for 2 days from 4/12/2004 to 6/12/2004, vide order dtd. 3/12/2004 in Criminal Revision Application No. 105 of 2004. 4. Mr. D.M. Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dtd. 3/12/2004 in Criminal Revision Application No. 105 of 2004 is dehors the facts and law and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the order granting remand of the present applicant is revisable under the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon this Court, under Section 397 to be read with Section 401, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Track Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) granting remand for two days from 4/12/2004 to 6/12/2004. In fact, the judgement was delivered on 3/12/2004 shall have an effect, as if it is allowed on the date on which the application was preferred before the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad (Rural). Always judgement relates back, and therefore, the remand granted by the Addl. Sessions Judge keeping in mind the facts and reasons stated before the said Court is true and correct and requires no interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 to be read with Section 401, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the present applicant is involved in selling away Government lands in several cases; there are 10 cases registered against the present applicant; all are pertaining to the selling away of the Government land. Even in the present case, i.e. the offence registered at Sarkhej Police Station bearing CR No.I-202 of 2004 is for selling away of the Government land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 1020/1 and 1221. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has also shown to this Court revenue record, which rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cannot result in acquittal of the accused or in termination of the proceedings. A remand order cannot affect progress of the trial or its decision in any manner and therefore, applying the test laid down in Madhu Limaye case, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551, the order of grant of remand cannot be categorized, even, as an intermediate order and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Addl. Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) is at the most can be labelled as pure and simple interlocutory order, and therefore, the present revision application is not tenable at law and therefore, the present revision application may not be entertained in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the statements, revenue record of Revenue Survey Nos. 1020/1 and 1221, notarized documents, documents in nature of partnership or Memorandum of Understanding and the statements of the present applicant etc. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, nature of the offence, documents collected by the prosecution so far during he course of investigation with regard to CR No.I-202 of 2004 at Sarkhej P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he revision application was preferred on 5/11/2004 and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge runs contrary to the interpretation of Section 167 made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the applicant though looks attractive, is not tenable at law for the simple reason that in the present case immediately upon the production of the present applicant i.e. on 1/11/2004, application for remand was made by the State and upon rejection of the same by the Judicial Magistrate (FC), Ahmedabad (Rural), immediately on 5/11/2004 a Revision Application was preferred by the State before the Sessions Court at Ahmedabad (Rural). Thus both, the remand application as well as the revision application were preferred by the State within a period of 15 days from the date of production of the present applicant and the learned Addl.Sessions Judge passed order on 3/12/2004 and therefore, the judgement cited by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is of no help to the applicant. In the case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, last remand application was preferred after 15 days was over from the date of production of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion of the trial. Section 309 CrPC confers power upon a court to remand an accused to custody after taking cognisance of an offence or during commencement of trial when it finds it necessary to adjourn the enquiry or trial. The order of remand has no bearing on the proceedings of the trial itself nor can it have any effect on the ultimate decision of the case. If an order of remand is found to be illegal, it cannot result in acquittal of the accused or in termination of proceedings. A remand order cannot affect the progress of the trial or its decision any manner. therefore, applying the test laid down in Madhu Limaye Case it cannot be categorized even as an intermediate order . The order is, therefore, a pure and simple interlocutory order and in view of the bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 397 CrPC, a revision against the said order is not maintainable. The High court, therefore, erred in entering the revision against the order dated 6/11/2001 of the Metropolitan Magistrate granting police custody of the accused Joy Immaculate for one day. From the aforesaid paragraph it is clear that there is vast difference between the grant of remand and rejection of the remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
