VINOD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. S. Mathur, J. The revisionist is aggrieved by the order, dated 18-1-1995 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut has granted remand to the revisionist, to jail custody till 31-1-1995.

(2.) THE main grievance of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind in passing the impugned order, reliance has been placed by him on Bhalchandra Anant Moyekar v. State, 1990 Cr LJ 685, in the matter of Madhu Limay, AIR 1969 SC 1014 and 1995 TIC 109, THE submission of the learned counsel is that on extending the remand he had to apply his mind and he cannot pass such an order mechanically. THE proposition of law envisaged by the learaed counsel is quite correct and is clearly borne out from the decisions cited by him but not so the inference that the order in this case has been passed mechanically or without application of mind. It is not disputed that the learned Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to pass such an order under Section 167, Cr. P. C. THE only complaint is that he has not given reason or in any case not given appro priate reasons.

(3.) LEARNED counsel also contended that when the charge-sheet has already been sent to the C. O. there is no question of further investigation. This statement appears to be rather sweeping. Sending of the charge-sheet is a part of the investigating process, the C. O. has to peruse the case diary and the relevant papers and, there after. it is for him to send the charge-sheet or approve its submission to the court. It is possible that he may think that something more has to be done in the case. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the submission that once charge-sheet is sent to the C. O. investigation part is over.