KATHI KALU RANING v. STATE — 1992 DIGILAW 170 (GUJ)

VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) whether in the Revision Application filed under Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the State Government, challenging the impugned order of the learned Magistrate refusing remand of the accused the police custody, was the learned Sessions Judge justified in at once remanding the accused to the police custody for some days at the very first step of the admission stage, without hearing the accused ? And further still, if at all the same is ultimately found to be apparently procedurally illegal, whether the judicial discretion so exercised on that count in the facts and circumstances of the case deserves to be sustained, on the overall and exceptional ground of justness of the public cause and the substantial public interest involved in the case?" 1. 1. The above two, in short, are the complex questions arising in this application for consideration of this Court which indeed are of quite farreaching implications and the significance having a definite bearing on the exercise of the judicial discretion by the Court in some of the extreme and exceptionally grave and serious, and the rarest of the rare types of the cases where the Court often finds itself embarassed and on the horns of dilema on the cross-roads of the technical justice on the one hand and the overall substantial public interest on the other hand. . ( 2 ) FEW relevant facts leading to the above questions to be briefly stated are - According to the complainant L. K. Chundavat, P. S. I. , Junagadh taluka Police Station, on 5-4-1992 at 23-30 hours (mid-night) he received a secret information to the effect that one Kathi Kalu Raning had illegally kept some cartons of bottles of English liquor imported from the other States in a small room in his occupation and possession at his Wadi situated in a Sim of village Makhiyara. Acting upon this tip-off, the P. S. I, immediately summoned two Panch witnesses and raided the said room of the petitioner who was found present there and in his presence seized 230 cartons containing 3924 bottles of the English liquor valued at Rs. 4,11,600. 00 (Rupees four lacs eleven thousand six hundred) only, imported from the other State. After drawing the panchnama of the said muddamal liquor, the petitioner came to be arrested for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 4,11,600. 00 (Rupees four lacs eleven thousand six hundred) only, imported from the other State. After drawing the panchnama of the said muddamal liquor, the petitioner came to be arrested for the alleged offences punishable under Secs. 66 (b) and 65 (a) and (e) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Thereafter, the P. S. I, filed a regular complaint being No. CR-III/89-92 before the P. S. O. Junagadh Police station on 6-4-1992 at 6-00 a. m. where according to him, the alleged offence took place on 6-4-1992 at 5-10 a. m. Thereafter, the P. S. I, producing the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh made an application under Sec. 167 of the Code praying for remand of the petitioner for 10 days. Highlighting the facts and circumstances of the case under which remand was felt absolutely necessary, it was specifically pointed out in the said application that the foreign liquor in huge quantity worth Rs. 4,11,600. 00 was seized from the possession of the accused who being a habitual offender, it was indeed not possible for the police to get any further information in the matter of other possible material links connecting the accused, muddamal liquor and the possible other associates of the crime, such as (i) the place from where the muddamal liquor was imported ? (ii) in which vehicle, the muddamal in question was brought into Junagadh ? (iii) who are the other persons involved in the alleged offences either by way of dispatching and/or ultimately receiving the muddamal liquor ? (iv) who is the principal offender ? (v) whether over and above the seized muddamal liquor any other liquor - bottles were sold to any persons, and if yes, (vi) in what quantity and to which of the persons the same were sold/distributed ? (vii) whelher over and above the seized muddamal liquor, there were any other liquor bottles biddsn at any other place ? and; (viii) whether over ard above the seized muddamal, any other narcotic drugs like heroin, brownsugar, etc. , have been imported in Gujarat ? Over and above the grounds enlisted above, the I. 0. (vii) whelher over and above the seized muddamal liquor, there were any other liquor bottles biddsn at any other place ? and; (viii) whether over ard above the seized muddamal, any other narcotic drugs like heroin, brownsugar, etc. , have been imported in Gujarat ? Over and above the grounds enlisted above, the I. 0. was also at his pains in his remand application to point out to the Court further facts that number of times in the past because of illegal consumption of seme spurious pquor, number of hooch tragedies resulting into heavy las of precious human lives and also endangering the public health where mary persons have lost their vision had taken place in the State of Gujaiat and the other parts of the country. Under such circumstances, accoidirg to the 1. 0. , if the cases like the present one were not permitted to be thoroughly Investigated by not remanding the accused to the police custody, the other offerders possibly involved in the offtnces cannot be booked and in that case the possibilities of recurrence of such hooch tragedies would not be checked to the greatest detriment of the public interest. On the basis of the above, it was finally urged by the 1. 0. that for the purposes of going to the root of the problem of the alleged offence, it was absolutely necessary to probe deeply and thoroughly investigate the case, and for that purpose unless the petitioner was handed over to the police custody, it would not be possible to track the other spread material links connecting the accused, muddamal liquor and other participants of the crime and to the said extent, he would be seriously handicapped and prejudiced in further investigation of the case. ( 3 ) IGNORING the aforesaid tale-tell facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate quite shockingly and surprisingly vide his Order dated 6-4-1992, rejected the remand application mainly on the ground that the muddamal liquor was already seized by the police and with a view to collect further necessary information from the accused in the matter of alleged offences, the police had enough time as he was not immediately produced before the Court, and therefore, it was not necessary to remand him to the police custody. Thereafter, it appears that on 7-4-1992 the leamed Magistrate released the petitioner on bail. Thereafter, it appears that on 7-4-1992 the leamed Magistrate released the petitioner on bail. ( 4 ) FEELING gravely upset and aggrieved by the said order rejecting the remand of the petitioner to the police custody, the State of Gujarat preferred revision Application No. 42 of 1992 under Sec. 397 of the Code before the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh on 8-4-1992, wherein the learned Judge on the very same day straightway allowed the said application and remanded the petitioner to the police custody for a period of 7 (seven) days by passing a short order, which reads as under : heard learned Addl. P. P. Shri Solanki for the State. Perused the order under revision as well as revision application memo and remand report submitted by investigating Officer. It appears that the learned Chief J. M. has not assigned reasons in his order. It is quite clear that a big and huge quantity has been seized by police officer. Reasons mentioned by the Investigating Officsrs cannot be said to be unreasonable, besides this missing link of the evidence requires to be collected through the inquiry and interrogation of the accused arrested by police. The learned Chief J. M. has mechanically passed the order without considering the impact and effect of the said order. Information regarding Narcotic Drugs requires to be obtained from the accused, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the application deserves to be allowed and hence I pass the following order : order application is allowed. Police remand for a period of 7 (seven) days is granted. It is hereby ordered that the accused is to be handed over to Investigating Police officer for the same period. If the accused is released on bail then he has to surrender before Investigating Police Officer immediately. The order of releasing the accused on bail, if passed, is hereby suspended for the aforesaid period. Yadi to Chief J. M. , Junagadh and Suptd. District Jail. Junagadh Sd/- ( 5 ) IT is under the above circumstances that the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh before this Court. ( 6 ) MR. Yadi to Chief J. M. , Junagadh and Suptd. District Jail. Junagadh Sd/- ( 5 ) IT is under the above circumstances that the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Junagadh before this Court. ( 6 ) MR. A. J. Shastri, the learned Advocate for the petitioner-accused while challenging the impugned judgment and order submitted that the same was patently illegal and perverse being contrary to the express provisions of law as contained in Sec. 401 (2) of the Code inasmuch as the order remanding the petitioner to the police custody has been passed ex parte, without offering any reasonable opportunity worth the name either to the accused personally or to his Pleader for being heard in defence. In support of this, Mr. Shastri referred to the relevant provisions of Sec. 401 of the Code which reads as under : 401. High Courts powers of revision : (1) xx xx xx xx xx (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (3) xx xx xx xx xx (4) xx xx xx xx xx (5) xx xx xx xx xx mr. Shastri further submitted that the aforesaid illegality did not come to end by passing an impugned order as the learned Sessions Judge virtually finally disposed of the entire revision application in favour of the State to the greatest prejudice and detriment of the accused right at the stage of admission, without even issuing a notice calling upon him to show cause why his further remand to the police custody should not be granted. It was further vehemently contended by Mr. Shastri that once the Criminal Revision application is filed before the Sessions Court, in the ordinary course, it is the duty of the learned Sessions Judge in the first instance to issue a notice to the othereside and if indeed for whatever reasons, the learned Sessions judge feels that it was a case of extreme emergency, then even in that case, he may fix early hearing of the case and offer reasonable opportunity to the othereside to say whatever it wants to say in defence and accordingly after hearing the othereside, should decide the case. But under no circumstances, the learned Judge in defiance of the principles of natural justice could have ever given a final verdict, prejudicial to the interest of the accused without even offering him the least possible reasonable opportunity to defend his case, as has been done in the instant case. On the basis of the above, mr. Shastri finally urged that since the impugned order remanding the petitioner to the police custody is illegal and perverse, the same very much deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 7 ) NOW, at the very outset, it may be stated that the Criminal Revision application by the State Government before the Sessions Court was filed under Sec. 397 of the Code end rot under Sec. 401, which pertains to the high Courts Powers of Revision, as contended by the learned Advocate Mr. Shastri. However, undisputedly it is quite true that the impugned order has been passed at the back of the petitioner without hearing him, on the very day of the presentation of the revision application by the learned Sessions judge. Ordinarily, the same should not have been passed without hearing him. It is also further equally true that ordinarily no orders prejudicial (. 0 the interest of the person concerned can ever be passed without affording reasonable opportunity to meet with the case, as it will be patently illegal. Keeping in mind ail these, generally it also cannot be denied that the submissions made by Mr. Shastri have no substance and that bat For some real. . , emergent and exceptionally grave and serious facts involving the vital public interest on the large scale, this Court also would have been not only lured and tempted to accept the same but would have rather readily felt duty-hound to accept the same in toto and would have loved to quash and set aside the impugned order. But then taking into, consideration the ex facie total perversity of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the grievance of the learned Advocate regarding the alleged illegality of the order loses much of its edge and the force. But then taking into, consideration the ex facie total perversity of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the grievance of the learned Advocate regarding the alleged illegality of the order loses much of its edge and the force. Farther;, while sitting as a Judge,one also cannot afford to be blind, mechanical,oblivious and remain unconcerned to1the fact that all cases are not always alike as there are cases and cases where court exercising its judicial discretion is required to take not merely the pedentic and technical view of the matter hut should also exercise better part of its judicial discretion by taking a just and pragmatic overall view of the matter. This can be possibly done only and only if in some exceptionally grave and serious and in rarest of the rare cases like the present one, where the Courts scaling the illusory walls of the procedural technicalities takes some honest and bold decisions in the overall public interest. Undoubtedly, sometimes, such bold decisions exposes the Court to some unwarranted adverse comments of having committed patent illegalities but then this cannot be permitted to influence and deter the Court from taking a decision which is just in the larger public interest. Any way, sometimes not to commit such intentional errors would be a blunder of stupendeous magnitude on the part of the Court as the society may become victim of an unrealistic approach of the Court. Unsavourable consequences of the Court deliberately committing an error by over-stepping the legal bounds in the fittest case would indeed be comparatively lesser than the case whereby adopting legalistic approach. As stated above, there are cases and cases which can safely and conveniently be classified into ordinary and extra-ordinary categories where sometimes extra-ordinary orders are required to be passed which though appears to be technically illegal may in a given case cannot be avoided as to become technical and legal would indeed be extremely hazardous to the public interest and public cause. It is at this crucial juncture that the judicial discretion is on the real test. It is only in such cases that the metal and mental and so to say judicial make-up, experience and stuff of the Judge is at the fire-test. Once again, it is at this juncture only that the fortune of the society also trembles in balance on the right or wrong decisions of the Court. It is only in such cases that the metal and mental and so to say judicial make-up, experience and stuff of the Judge is at the fire-test. Once again, it is at this juncture only that the fortune of the society also trembles in balance on the right or wrong decisions of the Court. It is indeed this moment only where the Judge is required to make an immediate choice and take momentous decision between the two cross-currents passing in his mind as to what would be just and in the larger interest of the society and not only what is legal and in the interest of an individual-accused. If this moment of taking an ingenious, bold and pragmatic decision is missed and purely one dimensional, academic, technical, legal and simpleton approach is adopted, divorsed from the wordly experience and wisdom gained by the Judge, it may indeed surely, indirectly and inadvertently further help the accused perpetrating injustices not only to one but to number of persons in the society. ( 8 ) FURTHER, in these excruciating days of the rampant and ever increasing terrorist activities and the resultant terrorism, large scale smuggling of the narcotic drugs and the sophisticated arms and amunitions etc. , etc. , in the country, the Courts administering justice has indeed to play a very special, sensible and active role by remaining extremely vigilant in the matter of discharging of its duties. In extreme and exceptionally grave and serious cases like the present one, if the Courts assumes totally unconcerned posture and the attitude and becomes technical by adopting the time-consuming procedure of hearing the other side without appreciating the gravity and seriousness of the large-scale serious consequences visiting the public at large as an unavoidable fall-out of the same, it would indeed be doing far more injustice and harm than so-called technical justice. In such type of cases, unless some bold decision is taken by exercising the sound judicial discretion, the overall social and public interest would be thrown into the great imbalance. Such a legalistic view of the overemphasizing individual liberty of the suspect at the cost of the society in a peculiar facts like the one in the present case, the Court was very much likely to commit not merely a simple error but rather would be committing blunder which may ultimately prove to be irrepairable and sometimes, unpardonable too. Such a legalistic view of the overemphasizing individual liberty of the suspect at the cost of the society in a peculiar facts like the one in the present case, the Court was very much likely to commit not merely a simple error but rather would be committing blunder which may ultimately prove to be irrepairable and sometimes, unpardonable too. Where the choice is between the technical error where sometimes individual has to suffer and the over-stepping the legal bounds where the society can be protected, it should be taken as an unwritten law and the mandate from this Court to decide the cases in a manner which are maximum for the social order and social justice first and the last. No Court can ever be permitted to decide any matter like the present one by just turning its deaf ears and blind eyes to the greatest prejudice of the society, on the basis of the procedural technicalities as by doing so, in the opinion of this Court, it sometimes allow itself inadvertently playing in the hands of the accused, permitting him to use technical law as to further perpetrate injustice by using the technicalities of law as a rope to hand the social justice and social interest. If this can be avoided by the Court, in such type of applications, by using its better part of the judicial discretion then to that extent, society can be saved from the scourge of criminals. ( 9 ) IT further appears that sometimes by becoming little technical and legal in some extreme, exceptionally grave and serious cases like the present one, the letter and the form of the law and the technical justice would be saved but at the same time, in these days of hard realities of life, the same will be at the grave costs of risking the spirit and overall interest of the social justice and its security. Under such circumstances, to say that the Court can neither even add or alter to what the legislature has said, may be a good defence conveniently permitting the concerned Court to take the shelter behind it, but such defence is nothing but the defence of an escapist Court which feels shy to rescue the public cause and is virtually interested in more saving itself from the allegation of committing illegalities, than standing for the overall cause for which it exits. In fact, every Court must know the basic difference between the following three categories, namely : (i) the bona fide mistake committed in interpreting legal provisions of some law or over-stepping the law; (ii) the deliberate mistake made in ordinary case, only with a view to help and benefit the private party; and (iii) deliberately over-stepping some legal bounds like the one in the present case purely in the absolute public interest and nothing else. The last one clearly falls within the exercise of the sound judicial discretion. It is only when the case falls in the second category that the Court should be worried about. It should not be forgotten that the law provides for the foreseeable eventualities, but when the question arises as to meet with some unforeseen hard realities of life, like the present one, judicial discretion must stand-by to solve the problem till of course the Legislature comes out with some provisions to meet with the same. Till the time Legislature comes out with some provisions, the Court in such exceptional cases cannot be permitted to wait and wait allowing the public cause to suffer before it eyes, nor can we expect the Legislature readily available behind the chair of the Court to prompt in ears of the Judge what is to be done. It is ultimately good sense of the overall justice-oriented conscience of the Judge which has to take a bold decision in the larger interest. In this view of the matter, what is ordinary and normally required to be done by the Court, once a while has to be kept aside for the time being in extreme exceptional case, like the present one. The choice, of course, is difficult one and yet at the same time, pragmatism and the wordly wisdom warrants that in extreme and exceptionally special case like the present one, the judicial discretion should necessarily be exercised in a manner which may subserve the overall public cause and public interest, rather than taking too much of care of the liberty of the suspect, at the cost of the society. In this case, without hearing him was no doubt quite harsh, but then taking an overall view of the matter, the same cannot be said to be an unjust. In this case, without hearing him was no doubt quite harsh, but then taking an overall view of the matter, the same cannot be said to be an unjust. Once a while in extreme and exceptional cases like the present one, the sound judicial discretion as the one exercised in the present case by the learned sessions Judge, has got to be exercised by all the Courts when befaced with such acute problem of public importance. The sound judicial discretion is a very important asset and the equipment without which he would just become a slot-machine, producing the mechanical justice only. The judicial discretion means judicial prudence. The meaning of the word prudence is circumspection or a discreetness of carefully avoiding the undesirable consequences. Accordingly, the man of prudence is always required to be careful in avoiding undesired consequences more so when he is acting as a Judge in the Court. The judicial discretion by the Judge must be exercised in a manner in which it best reflects the circumspection and discreetness in its conduct and order. His every step, action, order is therefore supposed to be extremely cautious, taking all the possible care to avoid undesirable consequences. Therefore, at every stage of the proceedings, the Judge exercising judicial discretion has to carefully evaluate all sides of the problem. Bearing in mind this principle in extreme and exceptional cases, like the present one, where the public interest is at the highest stake and in jeopardy, the overall judicial discretion or the judicial prudence undoubtedly warrants that the same should be exercised in such a manner which subserves the public interest, as it has been done in the present case. ( 10 ) FROM the above discussion, what this Court ultimately and in substance means to convey is the fact that when any Court finds itself befaced with such an exceptional, grave and serious situation and the eventuality like the present one, it is indeed required to be on the extreme guard and watch out and to exercise its worldly wit and wisdom pragmatising the judicial discretion in a manner which, even to prima facie found to be technically illegal, it ultimately stands to subserve the overall public cause, that is the public justice. The fetters of the procedural legalities are indeed quite good and in ordinary circumstances, the same must be scrupulously followed, but at the same time, if the same is permitted to be over-strained and stretched in all cases, irrespective of the overall exceptional facts of the case, without exercising the proper judicial discretion beyond common sense and reasonableness of it, losing the practical side of the problem and hazardous consequences that ensue as a necessary corollary therefrom by the Judge permitting himself to be hypnotised by the technical and legalistic narrow view of the matter, he would be so to say inadvertently permitting the Court agency to be instrument-alized or to be abused by the concerned criminals. It is only the judicial wisdom which can save the criminal jurisprudence from turning it into the paradise for the criminals, at the cost of the society. If such a care is not taken, the overall social cause and public justice would be easily put in jeopardy and sometimes beyond repair and for this, one should not be surprised if the blame is placed more at the doors of the Court rather than that of the accused. It is intact here in such cases only that the Judge is bound to realise that Life is larger than the Law. The law indeed makes some provision for some events which are ordinary and are quite foreseeable. But when unforeseeable events takes place for which law is unfortunately silent, the ultimate sense of justice warrants the Court to volunteer itself in the aid of the public justice by exercising its sound judicial discretion in the manner which procedurally does not prove to be enemy of the social justice. For example, to illustrate speaking the Truth is a "dharma" (Law), but that does not mean that incidentally sometimes when a butcher running after a cow inquires from any person as to in which direction the cow has gone, he should be told the exact direction and place where he has seen the cow going, as to do so would result into consequence of killing the said cow which would be far greater sin or adharma than the adharma of telling the lie. It is here and only under such circumstances that the soundness and the justness of more particularly judicial discretion, is at the real and practical test in persuing any theory or the legal principle. It is here and only under such circumstances that the soundness and the justness of more particularly judicial discretion, is at the real and practical test in persuing any theory or the legal principle. The instances are galore where even the slightest of the indiscreetness in mechanically persuing some principles at times is capable enough of converting and bring about the undesirable consequences to the greatest detriment of the society. This being patently unjust and against the overall public interest in exceptional cases, once a while by way of exception dogmatically following of the principle requires not to be mechanically followed in the overall view of the larger interest of the society. This view that is being taken just now by this Court, which when expressed aloud during the course of hearing, Mr. Shastri expressed his doubts about the advisability and the wisdom of the same. According to Mr. Shastri, if the Courts are permitted to over-step the procedural legal bounds, then there would be a sort of procedural anarchy and it will not be possible for anybody to get the justice according to the Law. He further submitted that there will be nothing to control the concerned Judge to over-step the legal bounds whenever he likes and pass any arbitrary and capricious order in the name of so-called substantial and public justice thereby opening the box of pendora of utter lawlessness. This apprehension of Mr. Shastri appears to be quite illusory and infact has no substance for the simple reason that when the Courts would be required to cross or over-step the procedural legal steps, it would be entitled to do so only and only on the basis of some extreme, exceptionally grave and serious cases like the present one. Further still, in support of every such order, the Court is bound to give reasons. If there is no material on the record of the case on the basis of which the Court can depart from following the legal procedure, such orders would be liable to be easily set aside by the superior Court. Not only that but assuming that sometime some mistake is committed by the lower Courts, then even the superior Courts like the High court is there to reprimand and correct the same. Anyway, in order to assuage, forestall and further vouchsafe the alleged apprehension of Mr. Not only that but assuming that sometime some mistake is committed by the lower Courts, then even the superior Courts like the High court is there to reprimand and correct the same. Anyway, in order to assuage, forestall and further vouchsafe the alleged apprehension of Mr. Shastri regarding the abuse of the judicial discretion by some Courts over-stepping the legal bounds, this Court would like to clarify that by permitting the Court to judiciously over-step the legal bounds in the case of the extreme, exceptionally grave and serious case like the present one, it should not be taken as giving blanket fiat or free-handle to the concerned Court to pass any order, as it likes, irrespective of the facts of the case, unless there is sufficient material totally justifying the same, like the one in the present case. ( 11 ) NOW turning to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the following tale-tell circumstances emerge from the Police record. They are : (1) That there was a definite information with the Police on the basis of which the room of the petitioner came to be raided; (2) That the petitioner was very much present at that time and he had no explanation whatsoever to offer in the said regard; (3) That the muddamal that was seized was in a huge quantity, viz. , 230 cartons containing 3924 bottles of English liquor, valued at Rs. 4,11,600. 00. (4) That the petitioner is alleged to be habitual offender and despite the fact that he was in Police custody for few hours, he refused to divulge further information in connection with the alleged crime; (5) That the muddamal came to be seized on 6-4-1992 at about 5-10 a. m. and the complaint regarding the same came to be filed on 6- 4-1992 at 6-00 a m. and on the very day, within few hours, the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate for procuring his remand for further investigation; (6) That the sale of spurious liquor in the past resulted into great human tragedies taking a very heavy toll of the human lives and seriously endangering the public health also is a matter of record and of common experience for everybody. All the above facts collectively taken together unquetionably warranted the learned Magistrate to grant remand of the petitioner to the Police custody for further investigation. All the above facts collectively taken together unquetionably warranted the learned Magistrate to grant remand of the petitioner to the Police custody for further investigation. As a matter of fact, the remand application itself was exceptionally quite clear and exhaustive enough to pass the necessary orders of remand. Under such circumstances, the learned Magistrate was obviously not only in error in not remanding the petitioner to the Police custody as prayed for, but rather his order rejecting the remand application was totally perverse, and therefore, could not have been allowed to be sustained for a minute even more. Under such circumstances, if the learned sessions Judge at the time of entertaining the Criminal Revision Application was to mechanically issue the notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be ordered to be remanded to the Police custody, then in that case, since the petitioner was already at large, having been released on bail, it would have been indeed too difficult for the Investigating agency to procure his presence and arrest him as he might be absconding as well - further delaying the investigation of the ease. This, the learned Judge rightly bearing in mind immediately remanded the petitioner to the Police custody on the very day of the filing of Revision Application. Further, if at such a crucial moment of the investigation when every hour is important and the learned Judge allows himself to become the victim of the technicalities of law, in that case, he would have inadvertently allowed himself in hampering with the further investigation of the case and the cause of the public justice to miss the bus. It is here that though the impugned order apparently is illegal, at the same time bearing in mind the doctrine of just judicial discretion in exceptional, grave and serious cases like the present one, it cannot be said to be wholly unjust. What is the procedure of law after all ? It is the way to reach the goal for the Court to deliver the justice. Therefore, what is important is the justice. What is the procedure of law after all ? It is the way to reach the goal for the Court to deliver the justice. Therefore, what is important is the justice. If the law under such circumstances helps in achieving the justice, it is veil and good, but then every Judge has got to bear in mind that in exceptional, grave and serious cases like the present case, if the technicality of law comes in the way of ultimate justice and obstructs the same, then by way of exception, following the above doctrine of judicial discretion in exceptional, grave and serious cases such technical legalistic approach will have to be respectfully kept aside in overall interest of social justice. It appears to this Court that taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the situation and the factors highlighted by the Investigating Agency to secure remand of the petitioner, which was turned down in absolutely unconcerned manner by the learned Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge was more than right and has done just a right thing by exercising a sound judicial discretion in favour of the public interest by remanding the petitioner to the Police custody. For this, the learned Judge deserves special compliments. Technically speaking, the learned Judge has over-stepped the provisions of law by not affording reasonable opportunity before passing the impugned order against him in straightway allowing the entire revision application. To the extent, the learned Judge finally decided and disposed of the Revision application it can be said that he should not have done that and to that extent the said Order can be said to be illegal. What this Court means is while admitting the Revision Application, the learned Judge instead of remanding the petitioner straightway for 7 days at a lime, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case should have in the first instance remanded him for 48 or 72 hours, and thereafter, after hearing him on the point, should have decided as to whether the petitioner should be remanded to the Police custody for further period or not. In the opinion of this Court, this sort of an order would have been just and legal order as the same would have on the one hand taken care of the interest of the Investigating Agency of getting the petitioner on immediate remand and at the same time on the other hand by giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard in defence. Only to this extent, the impugned order of the learned judge requires to be declared illegal and corrected. ( 12 ) IN the result, this Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed. The matter is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge with the direction that after three days of remand, he shall hear the petitioner as regards his further remand and only thereafter, he shall decided the matter and order further remand, if necessary. The petitioner accordingly shall surrender to the Police on or before 9-5-1992. .