SANDHYA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 19.2.2004 Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J. had directed that if the applicants and one another appeared before the Court of I ACJM, Rampur, through counsel, the Magistrate shall not insist on the personal appearance of the applicants, till the time of framing charges unless specifically required for any particular purpose. (Emphasis added).

(2.) IN spite of presentation of this order before the learned A.C.J.M. Rampur, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on 16.4.2004 almost overruling the order passed by this Court. He has observed that as N.B.Ws. were already existing against the applicants, unless the applicants appear in Court in person and furnish reasons why they were not attending the Court on particular dates, the N.B.Ws. against them would continue. This approach of the learned Magistrate does not commend itself to this Court. In such circumstances the learned Magistrate was required to make a sincere effort to implement the order of this Court in letter and spirit, rather than to find reasons for sabotaging it. It was incumbent on the Magistrate in such a situation to have withdrawn the non -bailable warrants and allowed the accused to appear through Counsel at least till the stage of framing of charges, in compliance with the order of this Hon'ble Court. Instead it appears that the Magistrate has used the order for re -affirming his earlier order issuing non -bailable warrants.

(3.) THE Magistrate should realize that there is no particular charm in collecting accused to add to numbers to the already crowded docks of existing Criminal Courts, nor is the presence of an accused to be secured merely for the purpose of glorifying the Magistrate. Clearly the import of this order was that the applicants should be permitted to appear through counsel. In any case, there is no particular advantage gained in insisting on the presence of all the accused in a case under Section 498 -A I.P.C. on each date.