AJAY VANAMALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case is directed against the judgment in Crl. A. No. 155 of 2008, whereby the learned metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by his judgment dated 24. 2. 2009, while dismissing the said appeal, confirmed the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad in C. C. No. 1527 of 2005 dated 6. 6. 2008.

(2.) WHEN the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner, mr. O. Manohar Reddy, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge pronounced the judgment on 24. 2. 2009, but he has not given the copy of the said judgment to the appellant and hence he could not file copy of the said judgment and thus requested the Court to dispense with the filing of copy of the said judgment.

(3.) THIS Court is rather surprised to know as to how the appellate Court pronounced the said judgment without furnishing a copy of the judgment to the accused/appellant/petitioner. When once the judgment is pronounced, in my considered view, a duty is cast upon the Presiding officer to furnish a copy of the said judgment to the accused so that the accused, can, if he so chooses, approach the appropriate Court for redressal. Further when once the appeal is dismissed, the Court, which heard the said appeal cannot suspend the sentence of imprisonment and the only option is to take the accused/appellant into custody. Here is a case where the petitioner was convicted and was immediately taken into custody thereafter, and then this revision is filed by moving a lunch motion. This court is unable to know as to what is the finding arrived at in the judgment and the sentence imposed excepting the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was tried for an offence punishable under Section 332 of i. P. C. and was convicted by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and the same was confirmed by the appellate court. However, these facts are not bom on record for the reason that the copy of the said judgment is not before this Court. Hence, this Court directed the Registry to call for a report from the learned metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, as to how and why he pronounced the judgment without furnishing a copy of the judgment and under which provision of law he did so.