SHARAD D. DAVE, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Kogje, learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent - State.

( 2 ) BY filing this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the direction for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 22. 04. 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gondal in Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2004 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the Criminal Revision Application preferred by the State.

( 3 ) THE petitioners are the accused who have been arrested in connection with the offence being C. R. No. I 25 of 2004 lodged with Gondal Police Station. The petitioners were arrested on 28. 03. 2004 in connection with the aforestated offence and they were produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Gondal on 29. 03. 2004. At the time when the petitioners were produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the remand application seeking fourteen days remand of the petitioners was preferred. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gondal vide order dated 29. 03. 2004 was pleased to grant two days remand to police custody of the petitioners i. e. till 31. 03. 2004. Further on 31. 03. 2004, the accused were produced before the learned Magistrate and further remand of seven days was asked for. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 31. 03. 2004 was pleased to reject the said application. Against the said order of rejecting further remand for a period of seven days of the petitioners, the respondent preferred revision application before the Sessions Court being Criminal Revision Application No. 25 of 2004. As stated above, the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 22. 04. 2004, partly allowed the revision application. It is this order which is challenged under this petition at the instance of the petitioners.

( 4 ) MR. S. V. RAJU, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that so far as the remand application is concerned, it was partially allowed since it was rejected for 12 days. He submitted that the prosecution accepted the first order of remand since neither the prosecution has challenged the same before the Sessions Court nor the prosecution obtained stay against the order of the learned Magistrate refusing the remand for 12 days and waited for 13 days and on 31. 3. 2004 second application for remand was given wherein grounds are almost identical except one ground. He therefore submitted that by reasoned order the learned Magistrate rejected the second application for remand. He submitted that the prosecution waited for 13 days and thereafter filed a revision application before the Sessions Court on 12. 04. 2004. In his submission, the prosecution cannot prefer the second application for remand since it is essentially seeking to review of the order of the learned Magistrate and therefore the prosecution ought to have challenged the first order of the learned Magistrate. He submitted that filing of second application for remand would amount to abuse of the process of Court as well as it would amount to circumventing so many provisions of the Act. He submitted that if the police remand is granted against the petitioners, it would violate the provisions of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submitted that even on merits there is no case made out by the prosecution for granting the remand and therefore the the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.

( 5 ) IN support of his arguments, Mr. Raju relied upon the decision in the case of Budh Singh V/s State of Punjab reported in (2000)9 S. C. C. 266, head-note of which reads as under :"criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 167 - After expiry of period of 15 days of police remand, order for police remand for a further period of 7 days, held, violated S. 167. "he also placed reliance on the decision in the case of C. B. I. Vs. New Delhi, reported in (1992) 3 SCC 141, head of whic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document