Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 295 (UTT)

RAFIQUE AHMAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2008-07-08

V.K.GUPTA

body2008
JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. By the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar on 26.06.2008, the direction contained in the order dated 29.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court), Udham Singh Nagar, has been totally and completely violated, breached, dis-obeyed and not complied with. 2. While disposing of Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2008, the learned Additional Sessions judge had issued the following direction in the operative part of the order : “The revision petition is accepted. The order dated 14.01.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar under challenge in this revision petition is set aside. It is directed that the learned Magistrate in the light of the observations contained in the judgment of (the learned Additional Sessions judge), should re-examine the evidence and the material already available on the file of the case with respect to the Final Report, whether to accept or not to accept the same.” 3. In the light of the aforesaid direction, it was the bounden duty and statutory obligation of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to have indeed re-examined the material and evidence on file, re-consider the same and by way of proper re-appreciation, once again to come to a conclusion whether to accept the final report or not and thereafter, depending upon the result whether to proceed against respondent no. 2 U/s 182 I.P.C. or not. The learned Magistrate did not do so at all. Not one word in the impugned order dated 26.06.2008 suggests that the learned Magistrate even looked at the file, what to speak of re-examining and re-considering the evidence or re-appreciating the same. In a mechanical manner, without any application of mind, he simply referred the case for re-investigation to the Police Station concerned. This was wholly impermissible in law. Why did he not understand the purport and import of a simple direction issued by a superior Court? This is something very serious in nature. 4. Even while I am allowing this petition and setting aside the impugned order dated 26.06.2008, I direct the learned Magistrate to re-consider the entire matter in the light of the observations made in this judgment of mine and in the order dated 29.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This is something very serious in nature. 4. Even while I am allowing this petition and setting aside the impugned order dated 26.06.2008, I direct the learned Magistrate to re-consider the entire matter in the light of the observations made in this judgment of mine and in the order dated 29.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I also direct the learned Registrar General of this Court to seek an explanation from the learned Magistrate and put it up for consideration on the administrative side. 5. The petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. 6. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar on 12.08.2008.