RAJARAM JAGBASI PASWAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K. T. Dave waives service of Rule for the respondent -State.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 18 -01 -2008 passed by the learned IVth Additional Senior Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nadiad, by which the learned Magistrate has granted police remand of the petitioner for a period of 3 days.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Tejas Barot for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been working with BSNL as a Phone Mechanic since last 21 years. He has got unblemished service record and he is working with sincerity and diligence. At the material point of time, the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Store Lineman. The petitioner was required to take Casual Leave on 25 -10 -2007 and, therefore, he made an application on 24 -10 -2007 for Casual Leave and same was granted by the competent authority. When the petitioner went on leave, the key of the stores was given to the higher authority as per the procedure. When the petitioner returned from leave and opened the stores, he found that 100 pairs of underground cable having length of 27 meters were missing. The petitioner immediately informed the higher authority. Although the petitioner informed the higher authority about the loss of the cable wires, the Department issued a Memorandum dated 14 -11 -2007 along with the statement of imputation of misconduct under the provisions of BSNL CBA Rules calling upon the petitioner to give explanation of the charges which were levelled against him. The petitioner gave reply dated 16 -11 -2007 and denied the allegations made against him and submitted that he was innocent and had no role to play in the loss of the cable. However, after long period, FIR bearing C. R. No. I -190 of 2007 was lodged on 01 -12 -2007 with Chaklasi Police Station, Nadiad for the offences punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection with the said offences, preferred anticipatory bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda. The learned Sessions Judge, Kheda was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, the Investigating Officer filed an application under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate seeking remand of the petitioner for 5 days. After considering the application filed by the Investigating Officer, the learned Magistrate was pleased to grant remand for 3 days. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that considering the provisions of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Judge ought not to have granted remand. The learned Advocate submitted that custodial interrogation cannot be given in order to make further inquiry into the theft or to have further investigation or interrogation from the petitioner. The learned Advocate submitted that on bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, it becomes clear that the learned Magistrate has not assigned reasons for granting custodial interrogation of the petitioner and, therefore, the order requires to be quashed and set aside.