Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner, inter alia, has challenged the orders dated 14th and 18th February, 1998 under section 137. Cr. P. C .
2. The crucial ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before passing the final order under section 137, Cr.P.C. In the wake of objection filed by the petitioner on order under section 133, Cr.P.C. Directed them to show-cause, learned S.D.M. Was required to hold an enquiry by way of recording evidence, however, the enquiry so provided has not been conducted by the learned S.D.M. And final order has been passed illegally. Learned Additional Advocate-General and learned counsel appearing for respondent No,5 do not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Relevant section 137, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced below: "137. Procedure where he appears to show cause.--(1) If he appears and shows cause against the order, the Magistrate shall take evidence in the matter in the manner provided in Chapter XX.
(2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that the order is not reasonable and proper, no further proceedings shall be taken in the case. If the Magistrate is not so satisfied, the order shall be made absolute."
It is very clear from the above provisions of law that the order shall be made absolute only after taking evidence in the matter. Admittedly, no evidence has been recorded before passing any final order. In view of this legal position, we had set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case to learned S.D.M. Manghopir to decide the matter finally afresh after strictly, adhering to relevant law vide our short order dated 9-3-2000 and these are the reasons for the same.