SUBHASH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Jaisingh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Pavnekar, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Pavnekar states that he has neither the case-diary nor any other paper. Shri Mukati, who appears for the intervenor-complainant, has filed certain affidavits alleging that the co-accused Raju had intimidated him. However, no report as such has been lodged.

(2.) By order dated 6-5-88, record of the Committal Court was sent for, which has been received. The case has been committed to Sessions, vide order dated 22-3-88. One of the co-accused, Rajendra has been admitted to bail. Shri Jaisingh, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed certified copies of the order-sheet dated 25-2-1988 and Committal Court record is also available. It is shocking that the accused was not produced before the Magistrate for months together and on date after date and what is more painful is that the Magistrate very conveniently had been granting and extending the period of judicial custody without insisting for production of the accused accepting a rubber stamped endorsement to the effect that accused could not be produced for want of police-guard, without even questioning the jail authorities or the police about it. To say the least, it is a very sorry state of affairs.

(3.) The warrants on record go to show that right from 10-11-1987 to 7-3-1988, the petitioner was not produced before the Magistrate, yet he continued to remand him to judicial custody on mere production of warrant in utter disregard of law.