ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel for State. ( 2 ) 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 v. State, (1992) 5 Orissa Cri R 555 : ( 1993 Cri LJ 442), and by a Division Bench of this Court in State v. Fagu Mallick etc. etc. (1993) 6 Orissa Cri R 604, the plea is clearly untenable. ( 3 ) RELIANCE was placed on a decision of this Court in Ramnath Naik. v. State of Orissa, (1993) 6 Ori 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 Ori Cri R 562, the plea is without substance. The controversy was set at rest by a decision of the apex Court in Raj Narain v. Superintendent, AIR 1971 SC 178 : (1971 Cri LJ 244), which was not referred to in Ramnath Naik's case (supra ). Both the contentions raised being without merit, the application is rejected. Petition dismissed.