SATISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present case the judgment/directions of the Apex Court in the cast of 'Common Cause' A Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1996 (2) East Cr. C.129 (SC) : (1996) 2 BLJR 1025 (SC) : 1996 All JIC 601 (SC) and 1997 (1) Eastern Criminal Cases 296 (SC) : (1997) All, JIC 278 (SC), are required to be interpreted in the following facts and circumstances:

(2.) THE petitioner was proceeded for an offence under Section 304A read with Section 287 of the Indian Penal Code in Chas P.S. Case No. 114/87 arising out of G.R. Case No. 1210/B/87 and on 5.5.88 after submission of charge sheet cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid Sections was taken and on 25.6.88 summons were issued to him for appearing on 11.10.88. The order sheet of the lower Court shows that on 16.12.89 warrant of arrest was issued and since than the trial could not proceed due to non service of summons and execution of warrant of arrest. On 20.12.95 fresh non bailable warrant of arrest with processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.G were issued against the accused petitioner through the S.P. concerned and also notices to the bailors, it further reveals that, thereafter, the petitioner was not brought before the Court and on 11.5.96 the case was directed to be put on 23.8.96. In the meantime the aforesaid society approached the Supreme Court for certain general directions with respect to cases pending in the criminal Courts all over the country. Their lordships gave certain directions by judgment dated 1st May, 1996 See (1996) 2 BLJR 1025 (SC) : 1996 All JIC 601 (SC) and on the basis of the said judgment/directions, on 18.6.96 the Magistrate discharged the petitioner. However, pursuant to clarificatory order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20th November, 1996 in the said case See 1997 All JIC 278 (SC) : 1997 (1) East. Cr. C. 296 (SC) by the impugned order dated 15.2.1997 the learned Magistrate recalled the order of discharge dated 18.6.96 and issued non bailable warrant of arrest and processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. against the petitioner.

(3.) MR . P. D. Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand, contended that the clarificatory order clearly indicates that the earlier decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable to offences under Section 304A of the I.P.C. and the Magistrate was justified in recalling its order dated 18.6.1996 when earlier decision of Supreme Court was not applicable to the case of the petitioner.