Skip to content


Urooj Abbas Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1973CriLJ1458
AppellantUrooj Abbas
RespondentState of Uttar Pradesh
Excerpt:
- .....in the court room before the magistrate and there was therefore no legal remand of himself to jail custody. the second ground is that the learned magistrate did not record any order remanding the petitioner to jail custody. the third ground is that no proper warrant remanding him to jail custody was prepared.3. it is not in controversy that in the case of the petitioner the learned magistrate had to act in accordance with the provisions of section 344 (1-a) of the criminal procedure code. that section reads:-(1-a) if, from the absence of a witness, or any other reasonable cause, it becomes necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, the court may, if it thinks fit, by order in writing, stating the reasons therefor, from time to time,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

G.S. Lal, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 491 of tie Code of Criminal Procedure which has come before the Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench of which one of us was a member. We have already allowed the petition by our order dated 22-5-1971, stating that our reasons would however be given later on. We proceed to give our reasons now.

2. The facts of the case are briefly these. The petitioner Urooj Abbas is an under-trial in a case under Sections 379 and 411, IPC He is detained in jail. One of the grounds taken by him in support of the case that his detention in jail is illegal is that on neither of the dates 4-1-1971 and 13-1-1971 fixed in the case for hearing he was called in the Court room before the Magistrate and there was therefore no legal remand of himself to jail custody. The second ground is that the learned Magistrate did not record any order remanding the petitioner to jail custody. The third ground is that no proper warrant remanding him to jail custody was prepared.

3. It is not in controversy that in the case of the petitioner the learned Magistrate had to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 344 (1-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code. That section reads:-

(1-A) If, from the absence of a witness, or any other reasonable cause, it becomes necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, the Court may, if it thinks fit, by order in writing, stating the reasons therefor, from time to time, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody:

Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time:

Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.

The orders of the trial Magistrate which are to be found on the record on the two dates on which legal remand orders are said not to have been made are to be found in the proceedings sheet in the following words:

4-1-1971

Case called out. The accused is in jail, in this case the P. P. has given his report that this is a case of Section 392/397, IPC and so it may be taken up as an enquiry case.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //