O.P.Pradhan, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 13-5-1983, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi, whereby he refused the remand of the opposite parties in connection with Crime No. 17 of 1982, Police-Station Kotwali Dehat, district Hardoi under Section 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision lie in a short compass : A dacoity was committed in the house of Sumer r/o village Birwapur hamlet of Poora Bahadur within the circle of Police-Station Kotwali Dehat, district Hardoi by 10-11 unknown culprits in the night of 23/24-5-1982. A written-report of this dacoity was lodged by Sumer at the Police-Station on 24-5-1982 at 10.15 a.m. A case under Section 395/397 IPC was registered and investigation followed. Five culprits, namely, Ganga Ram S/o Sumer, Bhaiya Lal, Balak Ram, Ram Pal and Ganga Ram S/o Bhawani were formerly arrested and put up for identification but they could not be picked up correctly by the witnesses Sumer, Chhotey Lal, Ram Pal and Jugnoo. Accordingly final report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the Police against the aforesaid five culprits and the same was accepted by the C.J.M. on 14-2-1983. Later on, the opposite-parties were taken into custody by the Police on 13-5-1983 on the basis of interrogation made from co-accused, Sakatey. They were produced before the learned C.J.M. Hardoi on the same day for remand to judicial custody on the ground that the investigation against them could not be completed within twenty-four hours and that they had to be put up for test-identification. The learned C.J.M., however, refused to remand them to the judicial custody on the ground that their names were disclosed by co-accused, Sakatey, who himself has not been identified and there was no other evidence against the opposite-parties. Accordingly the opposite parties were released by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the State preferred this revision.
(3.) List was revised but none appeared on behalf of the opposite-parties, even though they had put in appearance through Sri M. L. Syal, whose name was also shown in the cause-list of the relevant date. The learned Government Advocate was, therefore, heard and the record of the lower court was also perused.;