PHOOL SINGH TEKAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal under Section 351 of Cr. PC against the order dated 22-2-94 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, in mjc No. 3/94 sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-, in default simple imprisonment for three days, under Section 349 read with Section 345 of Cr. PC.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Appellant Phool singh was posted as Inspector, City Kotwali, Satna at the relevant time. He was directed to produce the case diary of Crime No. 60/94 of P. S. Kotwali, Satna, before First Additional Sessions Judge, Satna on 18-2-94 at 11. 00 a. m. for hearing of Bail Petition No. 138/94. Appellant, however, could not produce the case diary before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge on 18-2-94 when the case was called for hearing at 1 o'clock. The show-cause notice was, therefore, issued to him as to why action should not be taken against him under section 349 of Cr. PC for not producing the case diary before the Court on 18-2-94 as directed. Appellant submitted a written reply to the show-cause notice on 22-2-94 explaining that due to mechanical failure of jeep and puncture of its tyre appellant could not appear before the Court to produce the case diary at the scheduled time. The Court below, however, was not satisfied with the explanation and reply submitted by the appellant and found that the appellant deliberately disobeyed the order of the Court and failed to produce the case diary on 18-2-94, therefore, vide order dated 22-2-94 passed in Criminal MJC no. 3/94 registered against the appellant, sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25/-, in default simple imprisonment for three days, under Section 349 read with section 345 of Cr. PC, which has been challenged in this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order sentencing the appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- under Section 349 read with Section 345 of Cr. PC was bad in law inasmuch as the appellant never refused to produce the case diary before the Court. Appellant appeared before the Court on 18-2-94 at 1. 30 p. m. and also explained that he could not appear at the time of call, but he was served with a notice under Section 349 of Cr. PC. It was also submitted that appellant had produced the case diary again on 22-2-94 whereupon concerned bail application was disposed of and there was no refusal as such on his part so as to initiate an action under Section 349 of Cr. PC. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even under Section 345 of cr. PC the Court has jurisdiction to proceed and award punishment before rising of the Court on the same day and no action could be taken against the appellant under Section 345 of Cr. PC on 22-2-94 in respect of the so-called noncompliance of the order on 18-2-94.