MOHD TAHIR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Verma, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the parties. No counter affidavit has been filed. Learned Counsel for the ap plicant has argued that the remand order dated 22-12-95 extending the remand for sixty days is illegal because remand was al lowed for collecting further material evidence and that the remand was allowed for sixty days although the Magistrate did not have power to grant remand for more than fifteen days. It has further been argued that no remand orders were passed on 19-2-96; 12-3-96 and 20- 3-96 and the custody of the applicant became illegal. It has also been argued that the Sessions Judge after committal did not passed any order of remand under Section 309 (2) of Cr. P. C.

(2.) IN support of these aforesid conten tions learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision IN re, Madhu Limaye, AIR 1969, SC 1014 ; Ram Vibhuti Singh v. Superintendent District Jail, Faizabad, 1995 JIC 784 (LB) ; Mujeeb v. State of U. P, 1992 ALJ 285 ; Ahmad Nabi v. State, 1986 AWC 75 ; Rajesh Mishni v. State of /. /?, 1994, ACC197 :1994 JIC 305 (All) and Vashishth Muni v. Superintendent District Jail, Faizabad and others, 1993 UP Cr R159 (DB) (LB ).