- (1.) D. P. S. Chauhan, J. By means of this petition u/s 482, Cr. P. C. the petitioner, Mohd. Harun, has prayed for quashing the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunper dated 30. 9. 88 in Criminal Case No. 87 of 1986 (Annexure 1 to the petition ).
(2.) THE petition was admitted by this Court on 23. 12. 1988 and learned Additional government Advocate wanted time to ascertain the facts. This Court further ordered that: "it appears that the Magistrate has without making due inquiry as to who was guilty for releasing the applicant from jail without his undergoing the complete sentence or remission of any part of the sentence has passed the impugned order. Under the circumstances, the operation of the order dated 30. 9. 88 is stayed meanwhile. " The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 87 of 1986, u/s 379/411, I. P. C. , P. S. G. R. P, Jaunpur, was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, vide his order dated 23. 8. 77 and was sentenced to one year's R. I. where against he preferred an appeal No. 113 of 1977 before the Sessions Judge who also dismissed the appeal on 29. 3. 1978. Thereafter, the petitioner approached by way of revision this Court and this Court also on 31. 7. 1979. dismissed the revision but reduced the sentence from one year's R. I. to 9 months R. I. The petitioner accordingly to serve out the sentence so imposed upon him sur rendered on 27. 2. 1984 and was sent to jail. The petitioner was released from jail on 20. 4. 84.
(3.) AFTER his release, the Jailer, District Jail, Jaunpur, made an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, for issue of warrant of arrest against the petitioner on the plea that he had been released premature. The Magistrate accordingly issued warrant of arrest. This warrant of arrest was contested and was said to be illegal. The Magistrate after hearing the parties passed an order on 30. 9. 1988 that there is no justification for cancella tion of the warrant and the application is accordingly rejected and the learned counsel was directed to produce the applicant within 20 days failing which the action for arrest and attachment shall be taken. This order is under attack in the present petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kamal Krishna and the learned additional Public Prosecutor. Sri P. S. Adhikari.;