Rabindra Nayak alias Rabindra Kumar Nayak vs State of Orissa

A. Pasayat, J.—Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for State.

Petitioner''s grievance is that the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Baramba was not justified in remanding the petitioner to custody beyond the period of fifteen days, that too in the absence of petitioner. So far as the first plea is concerned, in view of what has been stated by a Full Bench of this Court in Banka Das, Rambalak Das, Birendra Kumar Behera and Soumitri Behera Vs. State of Orissa, and by a Division Bench of this Court in State v. Fagu Mallick etc. etc. (1993) 6 Cri R 604, the plea is clearly untenable.

Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Ramnath Naik v. State of Orissa (1993) 6 Cri R 237 to contend that in the absence of the accused an order of remand cannot be passed. In view of a Division Bench decision of this Court to which I was a party in Suresh Chandra Dash alias Suresh Narayan Dash v. State of Orissa (1994) 7 Cri R 562 the plea is without substance. The controversy was set at rest by a decision of the apex Court in Raj Narain Vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi, , which was not referred to in Ramnath Naik''s case (supra).

Both the contentions raised being without merit, the application is rejected.