CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Indal and Anr. vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 8 September 1997 · Citation: (1997) 09 AHC CK 0061

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K.Jain, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 209(b), 309(2)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1139 of 1997
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 363 words

P.K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri J.S. Tomar, learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G. A.

2.

The revision is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.

3.

S.T NO. 313 of 1995 is pending before the Special Judge, Rampur in which three adjournments on 3697, 16697 and 1797 were granted to the prosecution by the learned Special Judge. The accused are said to be in jail in the said session trial. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that no remand order as required by Section 309(2) Cr. P.C. has been passed by the learend Special Judge while adjourning the hearing of the case and, therefore, the detention of the revisionists in jail is without authority of the Court.

4.

Section 209 Cr. P.C. read with U.P. amendment in subclause (b) provides that the Magistrate may in cases exclusively triable by the Court of Session remand the accused to custody until commitment of the case under clause (a) and thereafter during and until the conclusion of trial. This amendment was added in the Cr. P.C. by U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976.There is no allegations in the grounds of revision that no order as required by subclause (b) of Section 209 Cr. P.C. as amended by U.P. Amending Act was passed by the learned Magistrate while committing the case to the Court of Session. It can not be presumed that such an order was not passed. In case such an order was passed there is no need of passing fresh remand order by the learned Special Judge under Section 309(2) Cr. P.C. while adjourning the hearing of the case. Unless under Section 209(b) Cr. PC.is challenged, no revision would lie against the present order.

5.

The revision is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

6.

Learned counsel for the revisionists points out that the accused are in jail since 1995. The trial is not proceeding for nonappearance of the witnesses. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and not to adjourn the hearing lightly. In case witnesses are not appearing coercive measure may be adopted for procuring the attendanceof the witnesses.

Revision dismissed.