This is a 1992 criminal revision challenging a 1992 order granting 15-day police custody remand. The court found no illegality in the remand timing. Citing the late status of the trial and no useful purpose in pending the old revision, the court dismissed the matter.
Revision dismissed; copy of order transmitted to the court concerned for information.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 915 of 1992
Revisionist :- Narpat & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinay Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the revisionists as well as Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02.07.1992 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Budaun in Case Crime No. 115 of 1992, Police Station Musajhag, District Budaun allowing the application dated 29.06.1992 of concerned Investigating Officer and granting one day police custody remand of revisionists-Narpat, Brij Nandan, Shyam Lal, Shri Krishan and Murari.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that according to Section 167 (2) (a) Cr.P.C. no police custody remand shall be given beyond the period of 15 days and in this case police custody remand was granted on 02.07.1992 and the revisionists surrendered on 17.06.1992, hence 15 days time was expired and impugned order is illegal.
Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. submitted that language of Section 167 (2) (a) Cr.P.C. specifically provides the word 'beyond the period of 15 days' and if the period calculate from 17.06.1992 to 02.07.1992 it is not beyond 15 days, hence this revision is not maintainable on behalf of the revisionists and remand granted by the concerned court by the impugned order is neither illegal nor without jurisdiction and there is no illegality in correctness or impropriety in the impugned order. Hence, revision is liable to be dismissed.
From perusal of the record, it is very clear that no police custody remand was granted to the revisionists by the court concerned beyond the period of 15 days.
It is also pertinent to mention that this revision is of 1992.
According to the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun dated 06.04.2018 in respect of Sessions Trial relating to this offence, it is not clear that whether this case is pending or not, hence, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the revision pending.
In view of the above, this revision is dismissed.
Copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned for information.
Order Date :- 7.7.2018/OP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the grant of 15-day police custody remand under Section 167(2)(a) Cr.P.C. was illegal when granted after the 15-day speedy surrender period.
Whether this criminal revision filed in 1992 should be kept pending or dismissed given the lack of clarity on the current trial status.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Narpat & Others
State Of U.P.
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
