JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner Chironji with a prayer for quashing the order dated 15.12.89 of Additional Sessions judge, Dholpur. Shri Brijlal Bundela, in Sessions Trial No. 103/89. He has also prayed that while quashing the aforesaid order, the Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Brijlal Bundela, should be directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to each of the accused persons who were sent to illegal custody and permission for his prosecution under sections 219 and 220 IPC be also accorded. 2. This petition was listed on 8.3.90 before Justice V.S. Dave. Justice Dave asked for an explanation of Shri Bundela to explain: "As to what provisions of law he has remanded the accused to the custody who were present in the court on the date of hearing without cancelling the bail. He shall also explain as to whether prior notice for such cancellation was given to the accused and whether the accused had been granted bail to appear in his court orders were passed by him or by the superior court. He should also explain under what circumstances and under which provisions of law he passed release order on the same day qua ladies, and further explain as to how there is variance in the dates given on the top of the order-sheet and under his signature." In compliance of the said direction, Shri Bundela has sent his explanation which is on the file. 3. To appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to give some facts, in brief, about the case which are as under:- Twenty two accused persons were committed to the court of Sessions Judge. Dholpur, to face trial under sections 366, 368, 376 and 379 IPC. 28.11.88 was the first date in the aforesaid case before the learned Sessions Judge. On this date all the accused except Somi Dilip Singh and Meena Singh, were present in the court. Personal attendance of the aforesaid three absentees was exempted by the court and the next date was fixed as 30.1.89. On 30.1.89 the learned Sessions Judge fixed 12.4.89 for hearing arguments for framing charge/charges against the accused persons. On this date some accused were present and for those who were absent, an application for exemption was submitted which was allowed.On 12.4.89 also arguments on framing charge/charges were not heard. On 30.1.89 the learned Sessions Judge fixed 12.4.89 for hearing arguments for framing charge/charges against the accused persons. On this date some accused were present and for those who were absent, an application for exemption was submitted which was allowed.On 12.4.89 also arguments on framing charge/charges were not heard. On this date all the accused except the two ladies, namely, Smt. Sheela and Smt. Meena, were present and they were granted exemption from their personal attendance for that day. Next date was fixed as 28.6.89.On 28.6.89 again arguments on framing charges were not heard and the next date was fixed 4.10.89. On this date it was reported that one accused Ram Prasad had died and the learned Sessions Judge, before passing any appropriate order in this connection, thought it proper to obtain a report from the concerned Police Station and Gram Panchayat. On this date also some of the accused persons were present and for the remaining, an application for granting exemption from personal attendance for the day was submitted which was allowed.On 4.10.89 also the arguments on framing charge/charges were not heard, as the report about the confirmation of death of Ram Prasad was not received from the Police Station, Kotwali, Dholpur. The learned Judge, therefore, sought explanation from the SHO, Kotwali, Dholpur for not sending the report. On this date also all the accused persons, except Dilip Singh, were present and exemption from his personal attendance was granted to him. 4. It appears that in the meantime the aforesaid Sessions case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, which was being presided by Shri Brijlal Bundela. The first date in his court was 20-11-89. On this date the learned Judge dropped the proceedings against the accused Ram Prasad as report confirming his death was received from the concerned Police Station. The accused persons, except Smt. Meena and Smt. Sheela and Chironji, were present and the absentee accused were granted exemption from personal attendance for the day. The learned Judge fixed 15.12.89 as the date for hearing arguments on framing charge/charges. 5. The order dated 15.12.89 is under challenge in the present Misc. Petition and the same is in serious controversy. On this date all the accused were present except Dalip Singh and Meena Singh. Thus, out of twenty two persons twenty accused were present in the court. 5. The order dated 15.12.89 is under challenge in the present Misc. Petition and the same is in serious controversy. On this date all the accused were present except Dalip Singh and Meena Singh. Thus, out of twenty two persons twenty accused were present in the court. For Dilip Singh and Meena Singh an application to grant exemption from their personal attendance for the date was moved but the same was rejected. Their bail bonds were ordered to be forfeited and non-bailable warrants, for seeking attendance of these two accused were also ordered to be issued. Then the learned Judge directed that all the accused (twenty in number) who were present in court, should be taken in judicial custody. The reason for taking into custody was given that on the previous dates some of the accused persons had assented themselves to delay the proceedings. The learned Judge further observed that on account of absence of the accused persons, charges could not be framed in the trial. The learned Judge then fixed 23-12-89 for summoning the accused Dilip Singh and Meena Singh by issuance of non-bailable warrants.After putting his signatures on the order sheet, the learned Judge again passed a subsequent order on the same date i.e. 15.12.89 with regard to Smt. Sheela and Smt. Kalawati. In the order sheet it has been mentioned than an application for grant of their bail was moved and they being women, it was thought proper to release them on bail. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on various grounds including:- (i) None of the accused persons misused the liberty of bail & there was no application also for cancellation of their bail, but still the learned Judge ordered to take all the accused persons in judicial custody who were present in the court. According to the learned counsel, the order of the learned Judge is not only arbitrary but is a misuse of the judicial powers, as there is no provision in Cr.P.C. under which the learned Judge could have passed such order sending all the accused in judicial custody without cancelling their bail which was granted to them by Superior Court. According to the learned counsel, the order of the learned Judge is not only arbitrary but is a misuse of the judicial powers, as there is no provision in Cr.P.C. under which the learned Judge could have passed such order sending all the accused in judicial custody without cancelling their bail which was granted to them by Superior Court. (ii) That the accused persons had been appearing in the court on all the dates of hearing except some of them and their personal attendance has been exempted from time to time by the Sessions Fudge, Dholpur and lastly by the learned Additional Sessions Judge himself after being satisfied. He further submits that there was hardly any impediment to hear the arguments about framing charge/charges and if charges were to be read over and some of the accused were not present, then he could have been read over the charges to the accused who were present and for the remaining a date could have b en given directing them to be present. According to the learned (illegible) accused persons wanted the proceedings/trial in the case. (iii) The learned counsel further submits that after ordering to send all the accused persons to judicial custody then there was hardly any ground to pass contradictory order qua the ladies on the same date as the ground on which all the accused persons were ordered to be send to judicial custody also existed for the two ladies 7. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the explanation which has been given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shri Brijlal Bundela, in pursuance to the order of this court dated 18-3-90.In the explanation, the learned Judge has stated that be gave oral notice to the accused persons as to why they be not taken into judicial custody and, after giving an opportunity of bearing to them, their bail was cancelled though no such specific order was passed in the order sheet and that the order sending the accused persons in judicial custody was passed after cancelling their bail. The learned Judge has also given the explanation that, though no order of cancellation has been passed in the order sheet, there was an oral order about cancellation of bail. The learned Judge has also tried to explain that his intention was to cancel the bail. The learned Judge has also given the explanation that, though no order of cancellation has been passed in the order sheet, there was an oral order about cancellation of bail. The learned Judge has also tried to explain that his intention was to cancel the bail. He has also given out in his explanation that all the accused persons were granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur and not by his court.The learned Judge has, then, stated that his order directing to send the accused persons to judicial custody was without any bias or ulterior object and the same was passed to avoid the delay in the trial of the case, though the manner in which the order has been passed some legal mistake has been committed by him.In his reply, the learned Judge has also tried to give further explanation, in para No. 8 of his explanation, that with regard to criminal Misc. Petition No 149/90 Chironji v. State of Rajasthan (the present petition), Chironji had moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge on 21-3-90 to the effect that he did not file any such application in the High Court and that Shri Durga Prasad Bansal, Advocate, had obtained his signatures on some blank papers after giving some assurance and those papers were misused by him. He further stated that the petitioner Chironji had made a request to the learned Sessions Judge giving his intention to withdraw his petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed before this court. It is noteworthy that this court had sought an explanation from the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 8.3.90 and it appears that an attempt has been made on behalf of the Judicial Officers, may be the Sessions Judge, Dholpur to get such application from Chironji, petitioner, on 21-3-90, though such application has not been sent to this court either by the Parned Sessions Judge or the Additional Sessions Judge. Such application, from the petitioner, appears to have been taken to save Shri Brijlal Bundela for his judicial lapses which he has committed in passing the order dated 15.12 89. This is really a serious matter, as such act may amount interference in judicial proceedings. Such application, from the petitioner, appears to have been taken to save Shri Brijlal Bundela for his judicial lapses which he has committed in passing the order dated 15.12 89. This is really a serious matter, as such act may amount interference in judicial proceedings. Any how, it requires an inquiry in the administrative side as to under what circumstances such application was obtained by the Sessions Judge, Dholpur, and what was the occasion to obtain such application when no case was pending in his court, and why that application was not sent to this court ? 8. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the order dated 15.12.80, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has no legal sanction behind it. The learned Judge had no jurisdiction to send the accused persons, present in court, to the judicial custody. If the accused persons or any one of them committed misuse of the liberty of the bail then the state or the complainant could have moved for an application of their bailNeither any such application for cancellation was there before the learned Additional Sessions Judge nor any notice about any misuse of liberty of bail appears to have been given to the accused persons. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge sending all the accused to jail on its face, is not only arbitrary but is clearly an abuse of the judicial powers. The Judicial Officers should know that they are not expected to act in any arbitrary manner, as judicial sobriety, restrain and to act in accordance with law are expected from them. If any of the accused did not appear in the court, then the court had powers to refuse exemption from personal attendance, if no good ground was made out. His/their bail bonds could also be forfeited and his/their attendance could be secured by issuance of non-bailable warrant. Even after his/their arrest, he/they might be refused bail if such a case is made out. But there is hardly any ground or any provision in law under which the accused persons, who were present in court or who had been appearing in court could be sent to judicial custody, without cancelling their bail simply on the whims of the presiding officer. But there is hardly any ground or any provision in law under which the accused persons, who were present in court or who had been appearing in court could be sent to judicial custody, without cancelling their bail simply on the whims of the presiding officer. The judicial officers are expected to maintain restrain while discharging their judicial duties and not to act on their whims which has no sanction in the eyes of law. Such action amounts not only an abuse of the process of the court, but is a misuse of the judicial power which also brings the judicial in disregard in the case of the public. 9. I would also like to the something about the alleged delay in the trial of the case, the ground on which the accused persons, who were present in the court, were directed to be sent to judicial custody. I have detailed out the substance of the various order sheets in two preceding paragraphs and a perusal of the same will make it evident that most of the accused persons had been appearing in the court and for those who were not present, applications for grant of exemption to them from their personal attendance were moved from time to time and exemption was granted by the court, either after being satisfied that there was sufficient ground for their not appearance or because their attendance was not needed on that date, as only arguments on framing charges were to be heard. From the order sheets it does not appear that the arguments on framing charge could not be beard on account of the absence of any of the accused persons. It appears that the court did not hear the arguments for one reason or the other but not due to absence of any accused. When twenty two persons face trial in a criminal case then some concession has to be given for the absence of one or two accused persons for one reason or the other. In that situation, if it is found that the trial in the case was being delayed on account of absence of that accused and his absence was without any good reason, then the court may refuse to grant him exemption from personal attendance and proceed in accordance with law as stated above. In that situation, if it is found that the trial in the case was being delayed on account of absence of that accused and his absence was without any good reason, then the court may refuse to grant him exemption from personal attendance and proceed in accordance with law as stated above. In my opinion, ground of delay for sending the accused persons in judicial custody was a fanciful ground for which there is no basis on the record. 10. Judged from any angle, the impugned order dated 15-12-89, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, sending the accused persons to the judicial custody cannot be legally sustained. Consequently, it deserves to be quashed. 11. So far the other two prayers are concerned i.e. awarding compensation and granting permission for the prosecution of the presiding officer, I could not like to comment much except that such relief cannot be granted in the present petition under section 482 Cr P.C. The petitioner or any other accused person may seek their remedy in this connection in some other forum, if available to them. 12. Before parting with, I would like to say few words about the conduct of the presiding officer, which has become necessary after seeing the explanation sent by him. In the explanation the learned presiding officer has stated that oral notice was given to the accused as to why their bail be not cancelled and after giving an opportunity of hearing about cancellation of bail they were directed to be sent to the judicial custody, though this fact has not been specifically mentioned in the impugned order dated 15-12-89. This explanation appears to be prima-facie incorrect and appears to be an after-thought, to give explanation put sought by Justice Dave vide his order dated 8-3-90. Not only this, from the averments made in paragraph 6 in the explanation, it further appears that after the explanation was sought by this court vide order dated 8-3-90, an attempt has been made by the concerned Sessions Judge, Dholpur, to help Shri Bundela to wash out the lapses on his part (the Additional Sessions Judge) by getting an application from the petitioner on 21-3-90 to the effect that he did not move any application in the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and that he does not want to press the same. It is a very serious matter which requires serious consideration and an enquiry in the administrative side. I would have thought to end the matter here but seeing the explanation give by the learned presiding officer. I am of the view that the learned presiding officer has not only acted arbitrarily in sending the accused, who were present is court, in judicial custody but he has also tried to cover up the mistakes/lapses by giving not only incorrect explanation but an attempt has been made by him, through the Sessions Judge Dholpur, to wash out the entire matter an application from the petitioner Chironji on 21-3-90. The entire matter should be placed before the Honb'le Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Administrative judge to take appropriate action in this connection in the administrative side, if they think it proper. The officer is directed that who sets of paper books should be got prepared by it consisting the following documents and one set of the paper book should be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Administrative Judge for their kind perusal. (1) Copy of the order dated 15-12-89 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Dholpur in Sessions Trial No. 103/89 State v. Daulat Ram and others . (2) Copy of order dated 8 3-90 passed by Hon'ble Justice V.S. Dave in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 149/90. (3) Copy of the explanation given by Shri Brijlal Bundela Additional District Sessions Judge, Dholpur in really to the explanation sought in this connection by Justice Dave vide order dated 8-3-90. (4) Copies of the order sheets dated 28-11-88, 30-1-89, 12-4-89, 28-6-89, 14-10-89, and 20-11-89 from the file of Sessions Trial No. 103/89 (149/90) and (5) Copy of this order. The net result is that the petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, sending the accused persons, who were present in court, to judicial custody in quashed.Petition allowed. *******