Nurullah vs State of U.P.

B.K. Rathi, J.—This revision under Section 397/401 Cr. P.C. has been filed against the orders dated 30798, 1598, 18898,29898,8998,22998,23998, 121098,51198, 41298,4199,19/20199,19299,19399,15499 and 1599 passed by the Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 1998.

I have heard Sri A.P. Tewari, learned counsel for the applicantrevisionist and the A. G. A.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case has been adjourned several times by the Addl. Sessions Judge. Photocopy of the entire order sheet has been filed. It is contended that it shows that there is no remand under Section 309 Cr. P.C. and, therefore, the detention of the applicant is illegal.

Learned counsel in support of his argument has referred to a case Vinod Balmiki and others v. State of U.P, 1994 (31) ACC 836. In this case the remand order passed by Magistrate under Section 209 Cr. P.C. does not contain the order of remand as required by law. Therefore, it was held that the detention is illegal. The other authority referred to is "Mohd Tahir v. State of U.P, 1996 (33) ACC 874. In this case the remand was extended by the Magistrate under Section 309 (2) Cr. P.C. for 60 days. It was found that the order is not according to law and therefore, the accused was released on bail.

I have considered both these authorities Clause (b) of Section 209 Cr. P.C. provides that the Magistrate may commit the accused and may remand the accused into custody until the conclusion of the trial. If once the Magistrate remands the accused into custody under Section 209 Cr. P.C. until the conclusion of the trial no separate order of remand is required to be recorded. The applicant has not filed the copy of the order under Section 209 Cr. P.C. passed by the Magistrate to show that no such remand order has been passed. There was no necessty of passing any remand order under Section 309 Cr. PC.

The revision, therefore, has no merits.

The revision is dismissed summarily.