LAWS(ALL)-1981-2-42

PHOOL CHAND UPADHAYA Vs. STATE

Decided On February 24, 1981
PHOOL CHAND UPADHAYA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A truck was seized in connection with an offence under Section 406/420 IPC pending trial. It has been released by the Magistrate on furnishing two sureties of Rs.50,(000/- each and a personal bond of the like amount. Aggrieved by the conditions the State filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Deoria. The Sessions Judge has modified the conditions of the release order and has directed Phool Chand Upadhaya to deposit a sum of Rs.35,000/- in Fixed Deposit and pledge it in favour of the Sessions Judge, Deoria and also furnish a personal bond of the like amount to produce the truck as and when required. Aggrieved thereby the instant revision has been filed by Phool Chand Upadhaya.

(2.) I have heard counsel for this parties and have also perused the impugned order. The applicant's counsel has argued that the revision filed by the State before the Sessions Judge, Deoria was not maintainable, inasmuch as, it was filed against an interlocutory order imposing terms and conditions by the Magistrate for the release of the truck.

(3.) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. Under Section 401 CrPC the powers of the High Court, in revision have been laid down. In the case of any proceedings the record of which has been called for by the High Court itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge this Court has been vested with ample power to pass an appropriate order in the interest of justice. Even assuming for a moment for purposes of argument that the revision before the Sessions Judge was not maintainable, yet this Court while exercising power under Section 401 CrPC has ample jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order in the cause of justice. The facts, which have been brought to the notice of the Court, amply justify an inference at the present stage that strict conditions should be placed upon the owner of the truck, who is a resident of Calcutta, so that the progress of the trial and the result thereof might not be adversely affected by the avoidance of the due process of law. The Magistrate had only directed Phool Chand Upadhaya to furnish two sureties of Rs. 50.000/- each and a personal bond of the like amount in the event of failure of Sri Upadhaya to produce the truck, as and when required by the Court. These conditions. In my opinion, would not be stringent enough to compell Sri Upadhya to produce the vehicle In Court. If avoided by him it would lead to further complications and litigations in order to obtain production of the truck. Thus the order which has been passed by the Sessions Judge, Deoria directing Sri Upadhya to deposit a sum of Rs. 35,000/- in Fixed Deposit and to pledge it in favour of the Sessions Judge, Deoria would be an appropriate and just order, in the circumstances of the case, which would have a compulsive effect upon the accused to produce the vehicle when required by the Court, failing which the court would find mo difficulty in realising the value of the truck and damages.