Aggrieved by the same the appellant has preferred the instant appeal by way of special leave.
For that purpose, he had to go out of Gauhati, the seat of the High Court to Sibsagar after the vacation sitting on October 31, 1966.
One of these dates was October 31, 1966 and another was November 10, 1966.
Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking permission to write an examination which was to be held on November 4, 1966.
Copies of such orders, if any, in the matter shall be enclosed to the report.
In the meantime while going through the order under challenge, we find that observations have been made to the effect that there is a practice of passing orders by an Administration Judge on the spot at the time of inspection and the handing over of petitions for bail etc.
Some of the Judges asserted that they had never granted any bail application in the companyrse of inspection and those applications were only directed to be placed before the companycerned Sessions Judge.
The above special leave petition has been adjourned even at the stage of calling for orders on admission.
The appellant moved an application for bail during the companyrse of inspection and the learned Judge numbericed the police officers as representative of the prosecution, and as they had numberobjection to the granting of bail to the appellant, the learned Judge passed the following Order The applicant is facing trial for companymission of offences under Sections 409, 447, 468, 218, 120 B IPC and also under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Registrar of the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, by taking instructions directions from the Chief Justice will send a detailed report to this Registry to be placed when the matter is taken up as to for how long this type of practice, if any, has been followed in the State and as to whether there is any sanction for the same under any law or administrative orders by the Honble Chief Justice of the Court at any time.
Meanwhile, on 29.4.2003 the Administrative Judge of the High Court of Punjab Haryana came for annual inspection to the District Sessions Court, Fatehpur Sahib, and the Deputy Commissioner, S.S.P. and other police officers were present.
The appellant moved another bail application on 24.4.2003 before the Sessions Judge, Fatehpur Sahib, which was fixed for hearing on 5.5.2003.
This order was challenged later and this Court held that by virtue of appointment as a head of Commission, the Judge does number demit his office and while holding a Commission of Enquiry at Sibsagar if he received the petition and passed an order, all that can be said is that the petition was irregularly presented at Sibsagar when it should have been presented at Gauhati.
His companyaccused similarly situated has since been enlarged on bail.
When the matter came before this Court on 16.2.2004, the following Order was passed Application for exemption from surrendering is dismissed.
The appellant also moved an application for the release of his earth moving machine, which was seized by the police during investigations and the same was released to the appellant on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.
The petitioner gave numberice to the Government Advocate and thereafter went to Sibsagar where the Judge was holding the Commission of Enquiry and presented his petition.
ARISING OUT OF SLP CRL.
The writ petition was entertained and the learned Judge passed an interim order permitting the petitioner to write the examination.
3604 OF 2004 G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. Leave granted.
The Honble Judge visited the Jail at Nabha as part of the inspection programme.
at that time.
But, on the next day, i.e. 6.5.2003, when his attention was drawn to the order of the Administrative Judge, the Sessions Judge granted bail to the appellant.
It appears that the appellant moved an application for bail, but the same was rejected.
Therefore, on November 2, 1966 he was number available at Gauhati, even though he was the Vacation Judge.
This Judge was also working as a Commission of Enquiry during that period.
A case was registered by P.S. Sirhind against seven persons, including the appellant under Sections 469/467, 468/218 120B of IPC and also under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and the final report was filed by the police.
At the request of learned senior companynsel for the petitioner this special leave petition is adjourned by four weeks.
