BALAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision case was taken up suo motu by this Court as it was found that an irregularity has been committed by the appellate Court in disposing of the appeal.

(2.) THE accused in C. C. No. 353 of 1978 on the file of the Judicial Magis-strate. First Class, Hosdrug, was charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 392 of the Penal Code. The case against him was that at 6. 30 p. m. on 6-7-1978 while P. W. 1, Maniamma, was going along the varamba of a paddy field after her day's work, the accused took out a knife from his waist, put her in fright and snatched away a gold chain worn by her. The chain weighed 3/4 sovereign and was valued at Rs. 396/ -. The accused after taking away the gold chain went to his house. The incident was watched by P. W. 2 a neighbour. P. W. 1 felt some pain on her neck and she went to the Government Hospital at Kasaragod. On getting intimation from the hospital P. W. 5, Head Constable, attached t0 the Kasaragod Police Station, recorded her statement and regis- tered a crime. The case was subsequent-ly transferred to Bekal Police Station, within whose jurisdiction the incident took place, The accused was in due course charge-sheeted and tried for the offence under Section 392 of the Penal Code, He was convicted under Section 379 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The judgment was pronounced on 17th May, 1980.

(3.) THE accused filed an appeal against the above decision from the jail and it was received in the Sessions Court on 17-6-1980. The appeal was posted to 11-7-1980 for production of the accused. As the accused was not produced on that date it was adjourned to 23-71980. In the meanwhile, on 16-7-1980 the Superintendent, Central Jail, Cannanore sent a letter to the Sessions Judge that the accused had been released from prison on 1-7-1980 on the expiry of his sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, holding that the appeal had become in-fructuous, dismissed the same. The learned Judge of this Court who perused the calendar felt that the disposal was irregular. Notice was thereupon sent to the accused, and, the Public Prosecutor. The accused did not appear.