STATE OF MYSORE Vs. SUBBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference is made by the Sessions Judge at Mysore, under S.438, Crl.P.C., with a recommendation that the orders passed by Sub DM. Magistrate, Mysore on 4-6-1969 in C.Misc. Nos.65 of 1969 and 64 of 1969 respectively on the file of his Court, are liable to be set aside. The impugned orders were passed by the Sub Divl. Magistrate directing dropping of the proceedings against the accused-respondents and releasing them when they were produced before him by the Police for remand. The learned Sessions Judge has made references to this Court, in both the above referred cases, by a common order. As the point of law involved in both the cases is identically the same, it would b convenient to depose them of by a common order by this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts are as follows. The police, Lashkar Police Station, Mysore City, registered two cases against the respondents in Crime Nos.217 of 1969 and 218 of 1969 respectively, under S.55(1) (a) and (b), Crl.P.C. and submitted FIR. to the Court of the Sub-Divl. Magistrate, Mysore. Both the respondents were produced by the police before the Sub Divl. Magistrate on 4-6-1969 with two separate remand applications, with a request to remand the accused persons to judicial custody till 16-6-1969, pending submission of the final report. The Sub Divl. Magistrate passed the orders in revision. In case No.64j69, the order passed by the Sub Divl. Magistrate was-

(3.) It was argued on behalf of the State that the order passed by the Sub Divl. Magistrate with a direction of dropping the proceedings against the respondents is illegal and bad in law, inasmuch as the cases against them were under investigation and no final report was submitted by the police. It was submitted that although in the order passed by the Sub Divl. Magistrate in Case No.C.Misc.65/69, the word 'dropped' is not used, nevertheless the effect of the order is that the proceedings were being dropped. It was urged that the prayer of the police, while producing the accused-respondents before the Sub Divl. Magistrate on 4-6-1969 was to remand them to judicial custody till 16-6-1969, pending submission of final report. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Sub Divl. Magistrate are illegal. I think there is substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the State. By a perusal of the record, it appears that the Sub Divl. Magistrate made the order mentioned above, on the respective remand applications. But the record does not contain any statement, either of the accused or of the Sub-Inspector recorded by the Sub Divl. Magistrate. Therefore, the record does not show as to how and in what manner the accused and the Sub-Inspector of Police were examined Evidently, the learned Sessions Judge was right in his view that the procedure adopted by the Sub Divl. Magistrate was improper and irregular.