STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DAULATBHAI TEKCHAND HARJANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.A. Pandya, learned APP for the applicant-State and Mr. K.J. Shethna, learned advocate for the respondent.

(2.) The State has preferred this Criminal Revision Application against the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Criminal Revision Application No. 194/98, dtd. 12.8.1998 wherein, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has set aside the order of learned J.M.F.C. passed in City Police Station C.R. No. I 81/98, wherein the learned J.M.F.C. had granted one day remand to the present respondent-accused i.e. dtd. 11.9.1998 from 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. I have been told by the learned APP for the State that same order of J.M.F.C. has been stayed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge during the course of the day by way of interim order dtd. 12.8.1998 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 194/98. That means that the above order had never came in operation.

(3.) Before I decide further in the matter, few points are relevant. First that the I.O. has submitted application on 3.7.1998 before the learned J.M.F.C., Vadodara and requests for police custody of the respondent-accused for a period of 10 days. To my surprise same remand application had been decided by the learned J.M.F.C. after a period of one month in such a serious offence. It was the duty of the learned J.M.F.C. to decide it on the spot. Instead of doing so, reasons best known to him for not deciding an application for a period of one month and then also after one month he has granted police remand for a period of one day, inter-alia, that is also for a period from 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. That means time taking accused from the Court and when reached to the police station and bringing back into the Court within stipulated time then definitely above granted time will be over, and therefore, this type of order is nothing but an eyewash and for that also the learned Magistrate had taken a period for more than one month. It is nothing but miscarriage of justice on the part of the learned Magistrate, and therefore, this type of practice is required to be deprecated. If he is not convinced with the reasons mentioned in the application submitted by the LO. for police custody, then it is his duty to reject the same and if he convinced with the reasons mentioned in the application then it is his duty to grant the police custody of the accused for a reasonable period, but, this type of eyewash order should not be passed by the Court just to make a show that there is a case for granting the police custody and then also he has grant police custody in such a fashion was ultimately amounts to reject the application is not proper and justifiable on his part.