Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
JAHIR AHMAD ALIAS ROHIT SAXENA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
CRLR 207 / 2013
Office Notes, reports, orders or S NL o. Date p dr io rec ce te iod nin sg as n o dr COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS Registrar’s order with Signatures
w i t h Si g n at u r es CRLR No.207 of 2013 H o n ’ b l e Pa n k a j Pu r o h i t , J. Ms. Raj ni Rangwal, learned am icus curiae for t he revisionist . 2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA wit h Ms. Swet a B. Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for t he St at e. 3. Before passing any order in t he case, t here are cert ain which needs t o be highlight ed: - • At t he t im e of adm ission of revision, t he revisionist was grant ed bail by t he Co- ordinat e Bench besides st aying of fine by order dat ed 07.08.2013; • On t he next dat e fixed, none t urned up on his behalf, however t he court in t he int erest of j ust ice, adj ourned t he m at t er; • On t he next dat e i.e. 15.10.2020, when t here was no represent at ion, Court direct ed t o issue NBW against t he revisionist ; • On t he next dat e, t he Court was inform ed by CJM, Pauri t hat NBW could not be execut ed as revisionist was not residing at t he given address, and hence, again t he fresh order of issuing NBW besides not ice t o suret ies was passed on 21.11.2020; learned CJM, Pauri for not • The reason assigned by execut ing t he order of NBW against t he revisionist or not ice t o his suret ies was t he report subm it t ed by Judicial Magist rat e, First Class, Lansdowne t hat t he
not ice t o t he suret ies could not be served due t o non- availabilit y of record in his office. Accordingly, t he Court , by order dat ed 30.06.2023 direct ed t he CJM, Pauri t o conduct an enquiry in t his regard; Learned CJM, Pauri subm it t ed his report dat ed • 28.07.2023 st at ing t he t he bonds of suret ies are not available in t he Court of J.M. Lansdowne and perhaps t he sam e are kept in t he record of CRLR No.207 of 2013; t o t hat order, Regist ry of t he Court has • Pursuant report ed by report dat ed 06.03.2024 t hat no docum ent of suret ies was available in t he file of CRLR No.207 of 2013. left wit h no ot her opt ion, was • The Court , having const rained t o appoint am icus curiae in t he m at t er. 4. This is a very sorry st at e of affairs t hat t he papers relat ing t o t he suret y bonds of t he revisionist are ly ing m issing from t he Court of J.M. Lansdowne. The Judicial Magist rat e has report ed t hat t he papers of suret ies ‘perhaps’ m ay be in CRLR No.207 of 2013, however, t he office report negat es t he aforesaid fact . This is such an unwarrant ed and unaccept able reply by a Judicial Officer of t he Court . Moreover, t he CJM, Pauri Garhwal should him self have m ade effort s for recovering t he records, which he did not . 5. Now, com ing t o t he m erit s of t he case, t his Court is
of t he firm view t hat when neit her t he revisionist nor t he suret ies are available, it would be a fut ile exercise if any order on t he m erit s of revision is passed. 6. Having regard t o t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case, t he Court hereby direct s t he Dist rict and Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal t o conduct an enquiry int o t he m at t er as t o how t he papers/ docum ent s concerning t he suret y bonds of t he revisionist have gone m issing. I f necessary, he is direct ed t o t ake suit able act ion including t he regist rat ion of FI R against t he erring Officer/ Officials in accordance wit h law. The enquiry be conduct ed at t he earliest but not lat er t han four weeks from t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
