Ravindra Singh, J. - (1.) THIS recall application has been filed on behalf of Vishwa Vijay and Smt. Seema Azad who are O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 in criminal misc. application No. 9106 of 2010 with a prayer that the order dated 19.4.2010 passed by this Court may recalled and the case may reheard and decided in accordance with law.
(2.) HEARD Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri D.S. Misra and Sri Ankur Sharma, appearing on behalf of Vishwa Vijay and Smt. Seema Azad who are applicants in the recall application and are the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 of Criminal Misc. Application No. 9106 of 2010, Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned Government Advocate assisted by Sri A.K. Sand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record. This recall application has been filed against the order dated 19.4.2010 passed by this Court in criminal misc. application (Under Section Cr.P.C.) No. 9106 of 2010 by which the application filed by the State of U.P. under Section Cr.P.C. has been disposed of by setting aside the order dated 6.3.2010 passed by the learned In -charge judicial Magistrate -1, Court No. 1, Allahabad in case crime No. 37 of 2010 under Sections /, / of Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act read with Sections // I.P.C. P.S. Khuldabad district Allahabad and the learned magistrate concerned has been directed to pass a fresh order. The application filed by the I.O. for remanding the accused Vishwa Vijay alias Kamal and Smt. Seema Azad to the police custody in the above mentioned case by learned magistrate. The order dated 6.3.2010 has been set aside by this Court on 19.4.2010, the matter has been remitted to the court of learned magistrate concerned and the learned magistrate concerned has been directed to pass a fresh order on the merits of the case ignoring the refusal of first application expeditiously in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the impugned order.
(3.) THE matter was remanded to the court of learned magistrate concerned to pass a fresh order only on the ground that the learned magistrate has not considered the legal position including the amended provisions of Section of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.;