ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. and perused the order passed by the trial court. It appears that during trial on 5.8.2004 the accused/revisionists moved application for their exemption from attendance through counsel. No order was passed on that application.

(2.) THE facts of this case are peculiar in nature. THEy show the ignorance of law on the part of the Court. THE trial was under Section 308/325, I.P.C. THE accused on 5.8.2004, did not appear in the Court. However, an application for exemption from attendance on this date was moved through counsel. It seems that the trial court did not pay any attention to this application. Since no order was passed on the said application before passing the order of cancellation of bail, the impugned order was uncalled for. THE order is unreasonably harsh on the applicant. It prima facie is unwarranted. Not only the bail was cancelled, sureties were noticed and non-bailable warrants issued but the step next to it was also taken. THE wrath of the Court is evident so much so that he also directed for drawing proceedings under Section 82/83, Cr. P.C. This is exceeding of the authority clearly.

(3.) SIMULTANEOUSLY both the proceedings cannot be drawn normally. It can be drawn only if the above situation is clearly available to the Court. Therefore, I am in agreement with the learned counsel's submission that proceedings under Section 82/83, Cr. P.C. cannot be drawn unless the non-bailable warrant remains unexecuted for the mischief of the accused. Thirty days later the proceedings under Section 82, Cr. P.C., proceeding under Section 83, Cr. P.C., can be drawn in law. These are the distinctions which are to be borne in mind by the Additional Sessions Judge, who passed the impugned order. The Officer is the First Additional Sessions Judge, meaning thereby that he has sufficient experience. An experienced officer is not expected to commit such mistakes of law, which professes his ignorance of the same. It appears that officer has forgotten to revise the laws. This is not a healthy state of affair. If the Court will not adhere the laws how can it be expected from the others.