PRITAPAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has come up before me, in consequence of an order, passed by MK. Chawla, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi on the 9th of February, 197.). in exercise of the jurisdiction, given by section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, here- alter called "lbe Code"-

(2.) A petition had been filed before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi under lections 435 and 438 of the Code alongwith which the summons issued to the petitioners were filed as annexures 'A' and 'B'. I have perused those summons. The contention, raised before the Addl Sessions Judge and before this Court, is that the summons were essenitally to be accompanied by a copy of the order passed under section 112 of the Code v. where in the Magistrate was imperatively to sei forth the substanee of the infoimation received by him, on the basis whereof, he had acted I have perused the original record. On receiving report from the police that there was apprehension of each of peace, on the very first sheet containing the report the Sub divisional Magistrate under the date 2nd December, 1972 in his hand passed an order which reads as under :- "Summon both parties and the 1.0. next week. It cannot beappreciated aito under what provision of law the Subdivisional Magistrare passed the afore-quoted order. Then I find another order which does not bear any date. I do dot find any reason as to why the Magistrate did not have the time to date his own order. The order is in the following words :-

(3.) I hereby, exercising the power given by Article 227 of the Constitution of India, call upon the Magistrate to render a written explanation as to why be did not apply his mind at all and did not pass a proper order by considering to circumstances disclosed by the police report. None of those circumstances could have been mentioned in a cyclostyled order.