Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1365 (PAT)

Pawan Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2009-11-03

NAVIN SINHA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order of the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah ordering them each to pay Rs. 12,500/- as compensation to Respondent No. 8 on grounds of allegedly having kept her minor son in the lock-up contrary, to law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that they were not properly heard before the District Magistrate as no intimation for appearance on the adjourned date was given and they never appeared before the District Magistrate much less conceded their guilt. The submission is that recordings in the order-sheet to the contrary are erroneous. 4. The order-sheet of the District Magistrate at Annexure-1 adequately notices the issuance of notice to the petitioners and their appearance through Advocate when they were duly heard. The impugned order then goes on to notice the appearance of the petitioners, inquiries made from them during the proceedings when they allegedly confessed their guilt. 5. The order of the District Magistrate dated 18.6.2009 is in the nature of quasi judicial proceedings registered as Misc. Case No. 54 of 2007-2008. The order-sheet written in judicial or quasi judicial proceedings have been considered to be sacrosanct. If an order-sheet is questioned, the author of the order is not in a position to defend himself. It has, therefore, been held by the Supreme Court, if authority be needed, (2007)5 SCC 358, that recording in the order-sheet are sacrosanct and the remedy for the aggrieved is to move the same authority, who will be in a better position on facts to deal with the submission with regard to the errors in the order-sheet. The petitioners have contended in their pleadings that the Bench Clerk of the District Magistrate on 30.7.2009 as also the District Magistrate himself refused to accept their Misc. application in this regard. 6. In view of the law as settled above, this Court directs that if the petitioners file any Misc. application with regard to any errors in the order-sheet, the law requires the District Magistrate to consider the same and dispose it of by a reasoned and speaking order. 7. On the day that the petitioners file their Misc. Application, it shall be also open for them to seek interim orders with regard to payment of compensation as directed on 18.6.2009. Only if the petitioners file such Misc. 7. On the day that the petitioners file their Misc. Application, it shall be also open for them to seek interim orders with regard to payment of compensation as directed on 18.6.2009. Only if the petitioners file such Misc. Case within a period of one month from today, this Court requires the District Magistrate to dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the petitioners within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. 8. The writ application stands disposed.