( 1 ) RULE. Mr. TS Nanavati, learned Special Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State.

( 2 ) THE present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred against the order passed by the Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Revision Application No. 105 of 2004, whereby the remand of the present applicant was given for 2 days from 4/12/2004 12. 30 p. m. to 6/12/2004 12. 30 p. m.

( 3 ) THE present applicant was arrested on 31/10/2004 in connection with the offence bearing CR No. I-202 of 2004 registered at the Sarkhej Police Station dtd. 21/9/2004 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The remand application was preferred by the State on 1/11/2004 before the Judicial Magistrate (FC), Ahmedabad (Rural ). The said application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate (FC), vide order dtd. 1/11/2004. Immediately on 5/11/2004, a Revision application was preferred by the State before the Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) against the rejection of remand by the Judicial Magistrate (FC ). Upon hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) granted remand of the present applicant for 2 days from 4/12/2004 to 6/12/2004, vide order dtd. 3/12/2004 in Criminal Revision Application No. 105 of 2004.

( 4 ) MR. D. M. Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dtd. 3/12/2004 in Criminal Revision Application No. 105 of 2004 is dehors the facts and law and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the order granting remand of the present applicant is revisable under the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon this Court, under sec. 397 to be read with Sec. 401, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the remand cannot be granted after first 15 days from the date of the arrest of the applicant. In the present case, the present applicant is arrested on 31/10/2004 and the remand has been granted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) on and from 4/12/2004 to 6/12/2004 and therefore, the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement delivered by the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Investigation Cell-I Vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1768. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the reasons given in the remand application does not warrant the grant of the remand of the present applicant, especially in view of a judgement of this Court reported in 2002 (1) GLR 215 and therefore, the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Ahmedabad) Rural, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

( 5 ) MR. TS Nanavati, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State submitted that the order passed by the Addl. Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), granting remand for 2 days is not revisable as per the judgement delivered by the Honble Supreme Court in State and Ors. Vs. NMT Joy Immaculate, reported in (2004) 5 SCC 729. It is also submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that in the present case, immediately after the arrest of the present applicant, a remand application was preferred on 1/11/2004, but the same was not granted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and therefore, within a period of 15 days from the date of the production of the applicant before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, again a Revision Application was preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) i. e. on 5/11/2004. Thus, there is no lacuna or lethargic approac