RAJASEKHAR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision case is directed against the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor passed in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1992 dated 9-6-1993 and remanding the case to V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor while setting aside his order dated 23-10-1991 passed in Calendar Case No. 52 of 1988.

(2.) The tacts which gave rise to file this revision case are as follows: The petitioner herein was a Sub-Inspector of Police working at Chittoor at the relevant period. Calendar Case No. 52 of 1988 was pending on the file of the V-Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor. On 23-10-1991 summons were served on the petitioner calling upon him to give evidence in the said Calendar Case No. 52 of 1988 as an Investigation Officer. He was unable to appear before the Court on the appointed day. Accordingly a notice was issued to him giving an opportunity to show cause as to why he shall not be punished under Section 350 Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner gave a reply to the effect that without looking into the diary that he will not be in a position to give his answer. Not satisfying with the explanation offered by the petitioner the trial Court passed order holding that the petitioner not only refused to appear before the Court in the said calendar case but even on earlier occasions also he failed to appear before the Court. Thus observing the Court passed an order convicting the petitioner and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of the Court and also to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- (fifty) in default to payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for five days.

(3.) The said order of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor was challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1992 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor on several grounds. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the petitioner's plea as borne out from the record that he could not attend the Court on the appointed day inspite of summons as he was deputed to some other place to investigate into a dacoity case. The appellate Court further held that the trial Court grossly erred in not following the procedure prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code. It further found that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forth his explanation. Aggrieved by the same this revision case is filed.