- (1.) THE petitioner has sought a mandamus commanding respondent No.1 to issue notification restoring back Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") in the State of U.P. in view of legislation made by Provincial legislature i.e. Criminal Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Bill, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Bill 2010").
(2.) IT has also sought a mandamus directing respondent No.2 i.e. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and respondent No.3, Secretary to President of India requesting the President to immediately accord assent to the "Amendment Bill, 2010". The matter came up before this Court on 22.12.2011 when Sri Ashok Pandey, Advocate appeared on behalf of petitioner, learned A.G.A. for respondent No.1 but none put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 though the cause list shown Additional Solicitor General of India as one of the counsel for respondents. Learned counsels appearing for the parties stated at the bar that the issue raised in this matter is purely legal and does not require any investigation into facts and therefore may be heard and decided finally at this stage. We proceeded accordingly.
(3.) SRI Ashok Pandey concluded his arguments. The Government Advocate as well as learned A.G.A. completed their arguments on behalf of respondent No.1. However this Court found that the stand of Government of India should also be looked into. Since no counsel of Government of India was present, we directed the petitioner to inform Government of India's counsel in writing and fixed 6.1.2012 for further hearing. On the next date i.e. 6.1.2012 Sri Ashok Pandey and learned Government Advocate reiterated their submissions.;