VIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the following short order passed by Sri S. K Gupta. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Oehradun on charge sheet submitted by CBI against regisionists Dr. Virendra Singh and Dr. Ralsem Singh in a case under sections 147/148/149/302 IPC, as Incharge Special Magistrate, CBI SPE Dehradun. "Cognizance taken. Register. Abhiyukt gan ke sambandh waste hajri dinanak 27-7-1990 ke liye jari ho".

(2.) BY notification no. 6152/VH/A. N. 308/76 dated November 16, 1976, in exercise of powers under sub-sections (i) and (1-A) of section 11 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act no. 2 of 1974) as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1976 (U. P. Act 16 of 1976) read with section 21 of the General Clauses, Act, 1897 (Act No. X of 1987) and in supersession of Government Notification No. 1592/VII-AN 209-74, dated April 20, 1974 in consultation with the High Court, U. P. State established the court of Judicial Magistrate at Dehradun to try or enquire into and commit to the court of Sessions all such cases arising within the local area allotted to it by this notification in which investigations are made or charge sheet filed by Special Police establishment constituted under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. This notification allotted several districts to the court of aforesaid Judicial Magistrate including District Sahranpur part of which is now District Hardwar. Commonly known investigating agency CBI is a part of Special Police Establishment constituted under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The case relating to police station Kotwali, Roorkee in district Hardwar was entrusted to CBI for investigation. CBI Submitted charge sheet to the court of Judicial Magistrate constituted" under aforementioned notification- This court has not been having magistrate from February, 1990. Sri S. K. Gupta acting as incharge of that court as Magistrate passed the impugned order on the charge sheet submitted by CBI.

(3.) ALL that the revisionists can complain is that the court of Judicial Magistrate constituted for CBI cases is vacant and if the revisionists are made to appear before the court, it would simply result into harassment of the revisionists because in absence of any Magistrate, no enquiry is possible. I am of the view that the grievance expressed about harassment is genuine. Nevertheless this grievance can be redressed by proper order under section 205 (1) CrPC. There is reason to believe that so long as no Magistrate is appointed for the court of CBI cases at Dehradun, personal attendance of the revisionists will simply amount to harassment. Even then their legal appearance before that court would be a step in aid of enquiry which may be subsequently held by the Magistrate appointed in that court. Hence for this reason personal attendance of the revisionists before that court can be dispensed with until a Magistrate in that court is appointed and starts functioning.