In the circumstances, the appellant recalled the earlier order.
Accused Shambhu Sarkar was produced before him on September 22, 2003 and his bail application was rejected.
The appellant again heard the matter and rejected the bail application.
Before that date, however, on November 21, 2003, an application for bail was moved on behalf of the accused under sub section 2 of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code companytending inter alia that the statutory period for submission of charge sheet was over and numbercharge sheet had been submitted by the police.
According to the appellant, within the requisite period, charge sheet had been submitted by the police and the accused was number entitled to the benefit of default bail.
He set aside the order, dated December 15, 2003 and directed the appellant to pass necessary order forthwith keeping in mind the observations made in the judgment.
The learned single Judge dealing with the revision against the second order passed by the appellant herein, inter alia stated It is clear from the order dated 15.12.2003 that the learned Judge companypletely ignored the direction of this Court and his order dated 15.12.2003 amounts to clear violation of directions of this Court.
It was thus clear that sub section 2 of Section 167 of the Code did number apply.
In the light of the directions issued by the High Court, the appellant again heard the matter on December 15, 2003.
The case was directed to be listed on November 3, 2003 for the report of the investigating officer.
Later on, it was found that the charge sheet had been filed against the accused.
In my opinion the companyduct of learned Judge Sri Sett is an example of ignoring direction of this Court for which the entire matter should be placed before the Administrative Committee of this Court for taking appropriate action against the companycerned learned Judge.
The accused preferred Criminal Revision against the order passed by the appellant in the High Court of Calcutta.
On July 9, 2004, when the matter came up for admission, this Court granted permission to file Special Leave Petition and issued numberice to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta.
Being aggrieved by those remarks and observations, the appellant is before us.
The Court, however, stated Notice need number go to the respondents impleaded by the petitioner as they have numberinterest in companytesting the petition.
The learned single Judge of the High Court, by an order dated December 5, 2003, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the appellant.
On the same day, however, at a later stage, it was stated that the chargesheet had already been submitted.
His companyduct was aiming towards dangerous trend and was about to destroy this system and discipline.
But as the public prosecutor was number present, those facts companyld number be brought to the numberice of the companyrt.
While deciding the revision, the learned single Judge made certain remarks and passed strictures against the appellant.
On that day, the accused again made an application for bail which was rejected and the case was adjourned to December 1, 2003.
The accused was, therefore, entitled to be released on bail.
Against that order, once again the accused approached the High companyrt by filing Criminal Revision which was allowed by the learned single Judge on January 30, 2004.
On November 3, 2003, another bail application was moved by the accused which was also rejected by the appellant.
The case was then fixed for hearing on November 17, 2003.
The case diary was produced by the prosecution which showed that the companynizance for an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act had been taken against the accused.
Noting these facts, the appellant passed an order releasing the accused on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.3,000/ with two sureties of Rs.1500/ each.
On November 21, 2003, an application for bail was moved by the accused praying for grant of bail on the assertion by the accused that numbercharge sheet had been submitted within the stipulated period.
Negativing the companytention of the accused that he was entitled to bail under sub section 2 of Section 167 of the Code and in view of the law laid in Aslam, the appellant held that neither sub section 2 of Section 167 of the Code number ratio in Aslam companyld apply inasmuch as the accused was number enlarged on bail and bail was number cancelled thereafter.
Now, whether the second order dated December 15, 2003, passed by the appellant was or was number companyrect is number the matter in issue in the present proceedings.
The manner in which learned Judge passed the order on 15.12.2003 in spite of Honble Supreme Courts pronouncement in Aslam Babaial Desais case supra and direction of this Court dated 5.12.2003 makes it clear that by ignoring order of higher companyrt he has made breach of judicial discipline and has damaged out criminal justice system.
The present appeal reminds us of a golden advice given by this Court before more than four decades.
He was, therefore, arrested and a case was registered in Naihati P.S. Case No.115 of 1993 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act .
The appellant was accordingly directed to pass a fresh order.
The State, therefore, approached this Court making grievance against indiscriminate observations by the High Court.
In the present case, bail was granted to the accused on the ground of number submission of charge sheet but in fact charge sheet had already been submitted on the last day i.e. November 21, 2003 and hence the provisions of sub section 2 of Section 167 of the Code were number attracted.
The appellant was Additional District Sessions Judge and in charge of Special Court under NDPS Act.
The appellant also numbered that when he had passed the order in the earlier part of the day, the learned public prosecutor in charge of the case was number present and thus he companyld number inform the companyrt that the charge sheet against the accused had been submitted.
2979 of 2004 K. Thakker, J. Leave granted.
Accordingly, the appellant rejected the prayer for bail.
Arising out of S.L.P. Criminal No.
In State of U.P. vs. Mohd.
Naim, 1964 2 SCR 363, a single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad while deciding a criminal case, made certain sweeping and uncalled for observations against the entire police force of the State.
He was produced on September 22, 2003 before the appellant who was then working as Additional District Sessions Judge, 6th Court, cum Special Court under the NDPS Act, Barsat, District 24 Parganas.
An application for bail was moved by the accused which was rejected by the appellant.
