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
5 paragraphs · 201 wordsC.A. Rahim, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist-applicant.
In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the detention of the applicant is not only illegal but unconstitutional. His contention is that he has been detained in jail without any proper order of remand. He has enclosed the order-sheets dated 22.3.1997, 4.4.1997, 11.4.1997, 29.4.1997, 8.5.1997 and 9.5.1997. By order dated 9.5.1997. the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has directed the C.B., C.I.D. to produce the accused before the competent court for trial and registration of the case. He has withdrawn the charges framed against the accused-revisionist on 29.4.1997. The contention of the learned Counsel is that since 9.5.1997, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is passing order of remand without having any jurisdiction, so the said detention has become illegal. No further or other order-sheets have been enclosed in support of his contention. I do not find any substance in the allegation and the same is rejected.
Moreover, the remand order passed by any Magistrate being an order of interlocutory in nature, a revision u/s 397(2), Code of Criminal Procedure is barred.
Considering the circumstances the revision is dismissed.
With the above observations, the revision is disposed of.