LOKENDRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused Lokendra Singh has applied for bail in Case Crime No. 799 of 1993, under S. 302/34, IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Bijnor. The bail application has been rejected on merits twice. The present bail application is pressed on the technical ground that the remand order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not valid under S. 309(2) Cr. P.C. inasmuch as the reasons for adjournment of the case have not been given and secondly, the proper authorisation order has not been passed.

(2.) Notices were issued and remand orders and order-sheet were summoned, from the Superintendent, Jail. The order-sheet in S.T. No. 365/93 State v. Ashok of the Court of IVth Addl. Sessions Judge right from 22-12-93 to 6-2-95 has been filed bythe learned counsel for the applicant. On most of the dates, only cryptic reasons for adjournment have been noted and there does not appear to be proper authorisation order. But on some of the dates, in short form, the reasons have been given. For instance, on 21-1-94, the order-sheet shows that the Presiding Officer was on leave. This order was repeated on 19-12-94 also. So, I think the reasons for adjournment, although cryptic in nature, are sufficient in law. The provisions of S. 309(2), Cr. P.C. are only meant to show how the proceedings in the Court are going on. Similarly, on 1-2-95, the order-sheet shows that the accused were present in the Court. But the witnesses did not turn up and prosecution applied for adjournment of the case. That application was allowed. The case was transferred to some other Judge, where 15-2-95 has been fixed for evidence. This way, the order shows briefly that the reasons for adjournment were there and the case was adjourned. Therefore, I find that the provisions of S. 309(2), Cr. P.C. have been complied with. The original warrants were summoned from Superintendent, Jail, i.e., dated 13-7-94. It is addressed to Superintendent, District Jail, Bijnor. Then the details of the case have been given. There is a direction to the Superintendent in these words :"You are hereby required to receive the said accused (Lokendra Singh) into your custody and produce him before the said Court as required on the reverse."This order has been signed by Magan Narain Kulshrestha, District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor. It bears the seal of the Court also. But unfortunately the dates on the reverse have not been signed by the learned Sessions Judge. However, a photo-copy of the warrant of custody under S. 309, Cr. P.C. dated 13-7-94 has been filed by the learned counsel for the opposite party, where in the entries on the reverse on two dates, namely, 13-7-94 and 1-2-95 to 15-2-95 have been signed by the learned Judge. The result is that by a subsequent order of remand, the irregularity, if any, stands cured.

(3.) My attention has been invited to a ruling of this Court Radhey Shyam v. State of U.P. (1994 UP Cri R 587). Paragraph 11 of this ruling is very relevant. It is quoted in full :-