Vinod vs State of U.P.

S. Mathur, J.—The revisionist is aggrieved by the order, dated 1811995 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut has granted remand to the revisionist, to jail custody till 3111995.

The main grievance of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the learned Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind in passing the impugned order, reliance has been placed by him on Bhalchandra Anant Moyekar v. State, 1990 Cr LJ 685, in the matter of Madhu Li may, AIR 1969 SC 1014 and 1995 TIC 109, The submission of the learned counsel is that on extending the remand he had to apply his mind and he cannot pass such an order mechanically. The proposition of law envisaged by the learaed counsel is quite correct and is clearly borne out from the decisions cited by him but not so the inference that the order in this case has been passed mechanically or without application of mind. It is not disputed that the learned Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to pass such an order under Section 167, Cr. P. C. The only complaint is that he has not given reason or in any case not given appropriate reasons.

It appears that the revisionist is involved in Case Crime No. 594 of 1994, under Section 364A/420, IPC, An application would appear to have been moved before |the learned Magistrate on 1811995 by the concerned SubInspector with the request that the remand of 14 days be given on the ground that chargesheet has been sent to C. O. and it will take some time for this being sent to the court, On this application the learned Magistrate has passed the following orders :

A perusal of the order indicates that the learned Magistrate has considered the relevant papers and has granted this remand on the perusal of the same.

Learned counsel contended that 14 days time may not be necessary for sending chargesheet to the Court after it has already been sent to the C. O. It would have certainly be better if the Government machinery could run that fast. It is indeed expected that such matters be dealt with more expeditiously but we cannot lose sight of the fact that in practice it is not always possible.

Learned counsel also contended that when the chargesheet has already been sent to the C. O. there is no question of further investigation. This statement appears to be rather sweeping. Sending of the chargesheet is a part of the investigating process, the C. O. has to peruse the case diary and the relevant papers and, there after.it is for him to send the chargesheet or approve its submission to the court. It is possible that he may think that something more has to be done in the case. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the submission that once chargesheet is sent to the C. O. investigation part is over.

As indicated above the order cannot be said to be nonspeaking or arbitrary. The order is within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and he cannot be said to have committed any material irregularity. Accordingly the revision is liable to be dismissed.

The revision is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.