RANADEVAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In C.C. No. 362 of 1980 the revision petitioner was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichur for having committed offences punishable under Sections 332, 448 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against him was that on 1-9-1980 at about 4.30 p.m. he voluntarily caused hurt to P.W. 1, a Police Constable, in the discharge of his official duties, with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duties. The revision petitioner is alleged to have pelted stones at the police constable and trespassed into a tea shop where he committed mischief by breaking a photo that was hanging on the wall. After taking evidence the magistrate found him guilty on all the counts. For the offence under Section 332 he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Under Section 448 of the I.P.C. the sentence awarded was rigorous imprisonment for two months. For offence under Section 426 IPC he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for one month. These sentences were allowed to be suffered concurrently.

(2.) The judgment was pronounced on 23-4-1982. The revision petitioner was defended before the Chief Judicial Magistrate by an advocate by name Pushpangadan practising at Trichur. It is said that the Criminal Revision Petitioner was not happy with his performance as his advocate. When the case ended in conviction the revision petitioner became more dissatisfied and wanted to change the counsel. Therefore, he entrusted the case records with another advocate by name Premachandran with instructions to file the Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Judge, Trichur. Accordingly advocate Mr. Premachandran requested the Chief Judicial Magistrate to furnish him with a free copy of the judgment enabling him to file an appeal on behalf of his client against the conviction and sentence. By that time advocate Mr. Pushpangadan had already received a free copy of the judgment from the Chief Judicial Magistrate and filed Crl. Appeal No. 69 of 1982 before the Sessions Judge, Trichur against the conviction and sentence. The revision petitioner and his new counsel Mr. Premachandran were not aware of this development. Sri. Premachandran was supplied with a free copy of the judgment by the Chief Judicial Magistrate only on 27-5-1982. Without knowing the fact that an earlier appeal has been filed by advocate Sri. Pushpangadan Crl. Appeal No. 72 of 1982 was filed by advocate Sri. Premachandran on 27-5-1982 itself.

(3.) When the Sessions Judge noticed the fact that two appeals were filed by two different advocates from the conviction and sentence against the same accused in the same case, an enquiry was conducted and statements were recorded. As a result of the enquiry the Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1982 was filed by advocate Mr. Pushpangadan without instructions from the client. On that ground, though the appeal was within time it was dismissed. When Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1982 was taken up that was found to be out of time and without going into the merits as to how the delay was occasioned the Sessions Judge dismissed Crl. Appeal No. 72 of 1982 on the ground of limitation. It is against the said dismissal that the accused had come up in revision.