IN THE COURT OF BASRUDDIN,

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARNAL
Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2016
C.I.S. No. CRR/198/2016
Date of Institution : 16.08.2016
Date of Decision : August 26, 2016

State of Haryana through S.H.O, Police Station City, Karnal.

…..... Revisionist
Versus

Ganesh Bindal son of Shri Jagdish Parshad, caste Mahajan, resident of

Chosana, Police Station Chosana, Shamli (Uttrar Pradesh).

…..... Respondent-accused.

Revision petition against order dated 03.08.2016, passed

by the court of Ms. Shikha, learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Karnal

Present : Ms. Anita Noniwal Public Prosecutor for revisionist assisted

by Shri S.S.Narwal Advocate for complainant.

Shri Sohan Lal Chhabra Advocate for respondent-accused.

JUDGMENT

1. Present revision petition has been filed by State

(hereinafter referred to as `revisionist') against order dated 03.08.2016,

passed by the Court of Ms. Shikha, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Karnal; whereby application, filed by prosecution, for seeking police

(Basruddin)
A.S.J, Karnal
 .2.
Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2016
State of Haryana Versus Ganesh Bindal

remand of respondent/accused (hereinafter referred to as `accused') in

case FIR No. 357 dated 08.04.2016 under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-

B/34 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity “the IPC”) was dismissed.

2. I have heard Ms. Anita Noniwal, learned Public

Prosecutor for revisionist/State assisted by Shri S.S.Narwal, learned

counsel for complainant Joginder Singh, and Shri Sohan Lal Chhabra,

learned counsel for respondent/accused and have gone through the

record very carefully, minutely and thoroughly.

3. It was submitted by learned Public Prosecutor for

revisionist assisted by learned counsel for complainant that accused in

this case was arrested on 28.07.2016 and initially 7 days police remand

was sought for affecting recovery of amount but 6 days remand was

granted by the learned ILaqa Magistrate. However, later on accused

resiled from his previous disclosure statement and suffered another

disclosure statement; whereby he offered to get affected recovery of total

amount of ₹ One crore twenty two lakhs and twenty five thousand from

the various persons and thus police remand for 5 days was sought but the

same was declined by the learned ILaqa Magistrate in spite of the

gravity of offence in this case. It was submitted that no cogent reason

was given by learned Ilaqa Magistrate for refusal of police remand. If

recovery is not affected from accused it will be prejudicial to the interest

(Basruddin)
A.S.J, Karnal
 .3.
Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2016
State of Haryana Versus Ganesh Bindal

of State as well as to complainant and case of prosecution would become

weak and redundant. Hence, request for setting aside the impugned

order was made.

4. On the other side, learned counsel for accused

submitted that the order of learned trial Court is perfect and legal and is

thus not liable to be interfered. Hence, he requested for dismissal of

revision petition.

5. After hearing both the sides and going through

contents of revision petition as well as trial Court's record, I am of the

view that revisionist is not entitled for prayed relief because in the eye of

law period of remand cannot be extended beyond 15 days. The situation

would have been different if investigation of case would have changed

from one agency to another agency. In present case, admittedly accused

was presented before learned ILaqa Magistrate on 29.07.2016. Initially,

police availed 6 days police remand. However, vide impugned order

dated 03.08.2016 further police remand for 5 days was declined.

Aggrieved against the impugned order, present revision was filed on

16.08.2016, which was assigned to this Court by learned Sessions Judge,

Karnal, for 17.08.2016. At the time present revision petition was filed,

15 days initial period of custody had already expired. There is no excuse

or justification on the part of revisionist for extending this period so as to

(Basruddin)
A.S.J, Karnal
 .4.
Criminal Revision No. 92 of 2016
State of Haryana Versus Ganesh Bindal

extend and advance/provide police custody period for further

investigation and further interrogation of accused. In my view, present

revision petition does not stand with the requirement of law and hence

same is hereby dismissed.

Trial Court's record along with a copy of judgment be

sent back to the Court concerned for information.

File, after due compliance, be consigned to record

room.

Pronounced in open Court on this

26th day of August, 2016. (Basruddin)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Karnal. 26.08.2016.

This judgment contains 4 pages and all pages are

checked and signed by me.

(Basruddin)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Karnal. 26.08.2016.