AMRATBHAI LILABHAI DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This is a Revision Application filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short "the Code"), challenging the judgment and order dated 7.1.2002 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10 in Criminal Appeal No.15/1999 under which the learned Judge dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and conviction order dated 18.1.1999 recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.10, Ahmedabad City, in Criminal Case No.1806/1997 whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A of the I.P.C. as well as for the offences punishable under Section 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs.500.00 for the offence punishable under Section 279 of the I.P.C. The petitioner was directed to suffer further S.I. for 15 days in case the fine was not paid. For the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. the petitioner was sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months. He was directed to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in case he did not pay the fine he was required to undergo further S.I. for 1 month. For the offences punishable under Section 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act the petitioner was directed to pay fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine he was required to undergo S.I. for 15 days.

(2.) . Looking to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner this Revision Application is being heard and disposed of finally with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

(3.) . The learned advocate for the petitioner has taken a contention that the present petitioner had engaged advocate Mr.M.I.Laliwal in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.15/1999 before the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. It is also contended by him that the learned advocate for the petitioner was not present when the above appeal was taken up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for hearing and disposal. It is also contended by him that even the petitioner was not present before the said Court when the said appeal was heard. It is also argued by him that the petitioner was not informed by his learned advocate that the matter was fixed before the Sessions Court for hearing argument in the aforesaid appeal, Therefore, the Court had not heard either the appellant or his learned advocate. It is also argued by him that the learned Judge did not appoint any advocate on behalf of the appellant to place the case of the appellant before the Court of appeal. It is next contended by him that an appeal is a statutory right of a convicted accused person and it is also a right vested in him to plead his case before the Court of appeal and prove his innocence. It is also a right of the accused person to show that the learned trial Magistrate had committed some error in convicting the convict and this right could not be availed of when the advocate did not appear before the trial Court.