SYED KHALEEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner faced trial for the offences punishable under Ss.279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and S.192 r/w S.66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and was convicted by the learned Trial Judge. Accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment and pay fine, with default stipulation. Aggrieved, the accused filed an appeal in the Sessions Court at Chitradurga. The appeal was assigned to the Fast Track Court. Mr. I.S. Jantli, the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Chitradurga dismissed the appeal. Assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

(2.) Heard, Sri R. Shashidhara, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the record.

(3.) I am shocked and surprised, that in a matter where sentence of imprisonment was awarded by the learned Trial Judge, the Appellate Judge has dealt with the appeal in a most injudicious manner. This is yet another case of injudicious dismissal of a criminal appeal filed against the judgment of conviction. While deciding Crl.R.P.No.556/2010 (Sri Moulasab Vs. Thalak Police Station on 25.8.2012), it was noticed that Mr. I.S. Jantli, as the Appellate Judge, had copied and pasted, paras 9 to 16 of the Trial Court Judgment, at paras 16 to 23 of his Judgment and by summing up the conclusion dismissed the appeal. The impugned appellate court Judgment herein is in no way different from the one noticed by this Court while deciding Crl.R.P.No.556/2010. There is a verbatim copy of the trial court Judgment and its mechanical reproduction, without an iota of appreciation of record of the case with reference to the grounds raised in appeal memorandum and / or the grounds urged for consideration. The copying from the trial court Judgment and the reproduction in the Judgment passed in the appeal can be noticed from the table below: Contents of the Judgment in C.C. No. 339 / 2006 dated 19.08.2008: