HARIHAR CHAITANYA VS STATE OF U. P.

Advertisements

FACT OF THE CASE

The case pertains to the detention of an indicted in judicial guardianship under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The indicted had been arrested and produced before the Magistrate, and the probing Officer had supplicated for detention of the indicted for a period of 14 days in judicial guardianship. The Magistrate pored the contents of the First- Information- Report and formed an opinion that vittles of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code were, prima facie, attracted. Thus, by the impugned order dated 7-10-1988, he directed for the medication of jail leave for detention of the indicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The supplicant had filed a solicitation under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the said order, contending that the Magistrate had no governance to pass the impugned order because it amounted to shifting the proceedings in disquisition.

ARGUMENT OF PETITIONER

The petitioner contended that the Magistrate had no governance to pass the impugned order because it amounted to shifting the proceedings in disquisition. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate had no authority to form an opinion regarding the section under which the indicated is to be detained in jail and direct the medication of the leave consequently. The supplicant also claimed that the order caused hindrance with the disquisition. Thus, the supplicant filed a solicitation under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the said order.

ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENT

The respondent in the case argued that while the functions of the bar and the police are reciprocal and not lapping, the Magistrate while passing order under Section 167 of the Code performs judicial functions. The Magistrate is within his rights to go through the contents of the report of the circumstance and form an opinion in regard to the section under which the indicated is to be detained in jail and he’s fairly empowered to direct the medication of the leave consequently. The Magistrate isn’t bound by the opinion of the probing Officer in regard to the connection of the section under which the alleged offence falls. The respondent further contended that the impugned order was legal and not vitiated by any provision of the Code, and hence, the solicitation under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order should be dismissed.

JUDGEMENT

In the case, the court held that the Magistrate while passing an order under Section 167 of the Code performs a judicial function and is within his rights to go through the contents of the report of the circumstance and form an opinion in regard to the section under which the indicted is to be detained in jail. The Magistrate isn’t bound by the opinion of the probing Officer in regard to the connection of the section under which the alleged offence falls. The court also observed that the functions of the bar and the police are reciprocal and not lapping. The Magistrate is fairly empowered to direct the medication of the leave consequently and the orders of this nature don’t beget hindrance with the disquisition. Thus, the impugned order was held to be legal and not vitiated by any provision of the law.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the court held that the Magistrate while passing orders under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure performs judicial functions and is empowered to go through the contents of the report and form an opinion in regard to the section under which the indicated is to be detained. The Magistrate isn’t bound by the opinion of the probing Officer in this regard, and directing the medication of a leave for detention under a particular section doesn’t amount to hindrance with the disquisition. Thus, the impugned order in the case was held to be legal and not vitiated by any provision of the law.

written by Shipra Vidyarthi intern under legal vidhiya

Admin