LALCHHUANAWMI Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This petition is filed by one Smt. Lalchhuanawmi, D/o Zahnuna, resident of Ramthar Veng, Lunglei District, Lunglei, Mizoram through the Superintendent. District Jail, Lunglei challenging the validity of the order dated 16th March, 1999 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate. Lunglei in connection with Lunglei P.S. Case No. 78/99 under Section 13(1) of Assam Drugs Control Act. 1950 vide G.R. Case No. 94/99 by contending inter alia that the competent court namely the AddI. District Magistrate (Judicial), Lunglei by her order dated ii March, 1999 granted bail to the petitioner in connection with the said Lunglei Police Station Case No. 78/99 but the petitioners bail was cancelled and she was remanded to judicial custody under the impugned order of 16th March, 1999 without serving any notice to the accused-petitioner and also without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order of 16th March, 1999 by the learned Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate. Lunglei. According to the petitioner, her bail was cancelled by the learned District Magistrate, Lunglei under the impugned order in consideration with the local leaders of Lunglei and on the basis of previous character of the petitioner. In my considered view, it is too much for the learned District Magistrate, Lunglei because of the fact that he has been dictated by the local leaders of Lunglei while passing the impugned order of 16th March, 1999, in other words, the learned District Magistrate has been influenced by those local leaders and he surrendered his power and discretion while passing the impugned order and, apart from it a clear cut case of unlawful dictation has been made out in the instant case and also misuse of power and abuse of discretion have been created.

(2.) It is well settled that the authority entrusted with a discretion must so to speak direct himself properly in law and the competent authority must call its own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider and such authority must exclude from its consideration, matters which are irrelevant to what it has to consider and that if the authority does not obey those rules the authority may truly be said, and often is said to be acted unreasonably. Similarly, there may be something so absurb that no sensitive person could ever dream that it lay within the power of the authority.

(3.) According to Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel who entered appearance for and on behalf of the learned District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Lunglei, it was necessitated on the part of the learned District Magistrate to pass the impugned order and also to safe guard the interest of the accused. At this state, I am of the view that the submission of Mr. C. Lalramzauva holds a little water inasmuch as the petitioner was condemned unheard by the learned District Magistrate thus, depriving her legal rights guaranteed by law of the land. However, T.Vaiphei, learned Public Prosecutor in his usual frankness submitted that the competent criminal court ought to have issued notice and afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard before cancelling, the order granting bail to the accused by the competent court. In my considered view, it is an established principle of law of the land. In the instant case, the learned District Magistrate called the related case records from the file of the competent court, namely, the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lunglei and without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard or say to the petitioner, the learned District Magistrate cancelled the bail bond thus, depriving the valuable legal rights of the petitioner. This Court has already indicated that it is too much for the learned District Magistrate. I am also of view that the learned District Magistrate had completely lost the sight of the established legal procedures while passing the impugned order of 16th March, 1999, particularly the provisions of law laid down in Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court need not go more into depth as this Court already indicated that it is an abuse of discretion, power and jurisdiction conferred upon the learned District Magistrate, Lunglei by law and apart from it, this impugned order is not tenable in the eye of law inasmuch as the learned AddI. District Magistrate (Judicial). Lunglei passed the bail order dated 11th March, 1999 with jurisdiction and it has the concurrent jurisdiction and power with that of the learned District Magistrate concerned in the matter. More so the learned District Magistrate, Lunglei has no power and jurisdiction to review or revise or cancel the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial). Lunglei and, apart from it, the learned District Magistrate cannot act or sit as an appellate court and cannot examine the validity of the order passed by a competent court like the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) having the same jurisdiction and power in the related matter. Such power has been afforded to the Additional District Magistrate (JudI.). Lunglei under the related Government orders which is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for and on behalf of the State, and accordingly the impugned order is set aside thus, affirming the order dated 11th March 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Lunglei in Lunglei Police Station Case No. 78/99 under Section 13(1) of the Assam Drugs Control Act, 1950 vide G.R. Case No. 94/99. In the result, this petition is allowed but no costs. Petition allowed.