AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Adami, J.—[His Lordship after stating the facts proceeded:]
It is clear that under the terms of that Section the District Judge was empowered to exercise his discretion as to whether the person brought up under arrest under a money decree should be released or not. I do not think that Mr. Rai''s contention that, the provisions are mandatory can be upheld. The learned District Judge, however, has given no reasons for refusing to release the petitioner u/s 23; he has merely said that the matter will be considered when an adjudication order is passed. Sub-section (3) of Section 23 directs that at the time of making any order under the section, the Court shall record in writing its reasons therefor. In the present case the provisions of Sub-section (3) have not been complied with. It seems that in this the learned District Judge has not fulfilled the requirements of the section. The best course for us to pursue is to direct that the learned District Judge should again consider the application of the petitioner and should record his reasons for either granting or refusing the petition. The petitioner at present has had an ad interim release on giving security. It is open to the learned District Judge under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 to order his re-arrest and recommitment to custody but reasons must be given. Of course the procedure u/s 23 is a temporary procedure pending the adjudication order u/s 3l. That Section will give the District Judge again the discretion as to the release or re-arrest of the petitioner.
There will be no order as to costs.
Bucknill, J.
I agree.