Back
2006 Supreme(Gau) 762
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
IQBAL AHMED ANSARI, J.
Siraj Ali and Ors.- Appellant
Vs.
State of Assam and Anr. – Respondent
Crl. Petition No. 116 of 2006
Decided On: 16.08.2006
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: L. Rahman, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: B.S. Sinha, Adv.
The judgment emphasized the importance of the Magistrate being satisfied before issuing warrants of arrest and the need for the Magistrate to have control over the proceedings in the court.
Headnote:
Warrants of Arrest - Criminal Procedure - Sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 302, 201, IPC - The court discussed the non-application of judicial mind by the learned SDJM in directing issuance of warrants of arrest and Proclamation and Attachment against the accused-Petitioners. The court emphasized the importance of the Magistrate being satisfied, on perusal of the relevant materials, before issuing such orders. The judgment highlighted the need for a clear finding by the Magistrate before labeling an accused as an absconder and criticized the mechanical exercise of power by the learned SDJM.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-Petitioners sought to set aside the order directing warrants of arrest and prayed for bail. The learned SDJM did not entertain their application, leading to a series of petitions and reports submitted to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned SDJM did not apply judicial mind in issuing warrants of arrest and Proclamation and Attachment. It also criticized the lack of control by the learned SDJM on the proceedings and ordered the transfer of the case to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, for disposal.
Issues: Non-application of judicial mind in issuing warrants of arrest, lack of control by the learned SDJM on the proceedings, and failure to take disciplinary action against the Bench Assistant and staff.
Ratio Decidendi: The Magistrate must be satisfied before issuing warrants of arrest, and a clear finding is required before labeling an accused as an absconder. The Magistrate must have control over the proceedings in the court.
Final Decision: The case was transferred to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, and the accused-Petitioners were directed to appear in the court and apply for bail, subject to certain conditions.
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. The facts, giving rise to the present revision, may, in brief, be noted as follows:
(i) In G.R. Case No. 444/99, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 147,148,149,436,302,201, IPC against persons named as accused in the said charge-sheet. By order, dated 1.6.2004, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate made over the case to learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mangaldoi, for disposal and, on receipt of the record, an order was passed, on 4.6.2004, by the learned SDJM directing issuance of warrant of arrest against the accused persons. By order, dated 4.2.2005, Proclamation and Attachment were directed to be issued against the accused. On the strength of the warrant of arrest, the police arrested one of the accused persons, namely, Rustom Ali, and, on his production in the Court of the learned SDJM, an order was passed, on 22.12.2005, remanding the said accused to judicial custody and the prayer for bail made by the said accused was also turned down.
(ii) The present Petitioners filed Criminal Petition No. 18/2006 seeking to get set aside the order, dated 4.6.2004, aforementioned, whereby warrants of arrest had been directed to be issued against all of them. By the Criminal Petition No. 18/2006, the accused also prayed that in the vent of their appearance in the Court of the learned SDJM, they maybe directed to be released on bail. By order, dated 24.3.2006, Criminal Petition No. 18/2006 was disposed of with direction to the learned SDJM to verify the records and ascertain if the contention of the accused-Petitioners that they were not really aware of the pendency of the case against them is correct or not. It was also directed by the order, dated 24.2.2006, aforementioned that in the event of the accused-Petitioners making application for grant of bail, the same shall be considered by the learned SDJM in accordance with the provisions of law. It was further directed by the High Court by its order, dated 24.3.2006, aforementioned that the warrants of arrest, issued against the Petitioners, shall not be executed for a period of seven days, but in the event of the failure of the accused-Petitioners to appear in the Court within the said period of seven days, warrants of arrest shall be executed. Thereafter, a miscellaneous application for necessary modification of the order, dated 24.3.2006, was filed by the Petitioners. This miscellaneous application gave rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 111/2006; the case of the Petitioners being, inter alia, that in compliance with the directions contained in the order, dated 24.3.2006, the Petitioners, having obtained a certified copy of the said order, appeared, on 1.4.2006, in the Court of the learned SDJM, and applied for bail, but the learned SDJM refused to entertain the bail application by observing that the order, dated 24.3.2006, passed by the High Court, in Criminal Petition No. 18/2006, was time barred. The Petitioners, therefore, in Miscellaneous Case No. 111/2006, sought for extension of time for their appearance in the learned court below, whereupon an order was passed, on 12.4.2006, in Miscellaneous Case No. 111/2006, whereby the High Court extended the time limit to 18.4.2006 by directing the Petitioner to appear in the Court of the learned SDJM within the extended period of 18.4.2006.
(iii) The Petitioners, thereafter, came, once again, to the High Court with an application made under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure and this application has given rise to the present criminal petition. In this criminal petition, the petitioner’s case is, in brief, thus : Following the extension of time limit to 18.4.2006, the Petitioners appeared, on 17.4.2006, in the Court of the learned SDJM and filed an application wherein they prayed, inter alia, that their appearance in the Court be recorded, they be allowed to go on bail and the warrants of arrest issued against them be recalled. However, as the learned SDJM was not present, the Judicial Magistra
