SUDHABATHULA RADHAKRISHNA VENKATA MOHAN RAO Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the order dated : 16-12-1997 of the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna Division at Machilipatnam, rejecting the unnumbered Crl. Appeal preferred by the convicted accused in S.T.C.No. 52/95 on the file of J.F.C.M., Bantumilli.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was tried for the offence punishable under Section 233 of A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 and for violation of Rule 34 (2) and Rule 41 of A.P. Gram Panchayat Rules. The petitioner-accused after full trial was found guilty of the said offences and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 14,600/- and in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months by the judgment, dated: 17-11-1997. As against the fine imposed on him, the accused paid Rs. 1,000/- towards the part of the fine. The petitioner-accused without paying the balance of the fine amount, preferred the appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed on him in S.T.C.No.52/95. The learned Sessions Judge, instead of admitting the said appeal, rejected it by observing " the accused who is sentenced to pay a fine shall first pay the fine and prefer appeal then only". Thus the only reason given by the learned Sessions Judge for rejecting the unnumbered appeal is that the appellant- accused who has been sentenced to pay the fine, failed to deposit the fine before preferring the appeal. Challenging the said order, the accused has come up with this revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner submits that the convicted-accused has got a statutory right of appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. and the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in rejecting the appeal preferred by the accused, on the ground that the fine imposed is not deposited before preferring the appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused further contends that the payment of fine in Court is not a condition precedent for preferring the statutory appeal. The learned Addl. Public prosecutor, also submits that the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained as the convicted-accused has got a statutory right to refer an appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed on him.