DANDAPANI PANIGRAHI Vs. THE STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition in revision against the judgment of a First Class Magistrate, Chatrapur, convicting the Petitioner under Section 174 I.P.C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 20/ - on a finding that the Petitioner wilfully failed to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chatrapur on 30 -5 -1959 though properly summoned to appear before him on that date, and that he was consequently liable under the aforesaid section.

(2.) THE Petitioner pleaded guilty when the substance of the accusation was read out to him. But this plea must be construed only as an admission of the facts alleged and it is undoubtedly open to him in this revision petition to challenge the legality of his conviction. He admitted that though properly summoned he failed to appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chatrapur at 10.39 a.m. on the date fixed viz. 30 -9 -1959. His explanation was that he went to leave court to answer an urgent call of nature. He further stated in his examination under Section 342 Code of Criminal Procedure that at 4 p.m. on that day he filed a petition mentioning this fact. The learned trying Magistrate observed that even if the Petitioner felt an urgent call of nature he ought to have posted some one in the court so as to keep the court informed of the reason for his absence. The learned trying Magistrate has not clearly stated as to whether he accepted as true the explanation given by the Petitioner for his absence.

(3.) IT is true that in the present case the learned Magistrate has not given a clear finding as to whether the explanation given by the Petitioner was acceptable or not. But the very fact that the Petitioner did not attend court immediately after answering call of nature and that he filed a petition only at 4 p. m. on that day leads one to infer that his explanation for non -attendance was probably not true. If the Petitioner had really appeared in Court on that day, at the time fixed, in answer to the summons, but was compelled to leave the court suddenly on account of an urgent call of nature he would have appeared before the Court immediately after answering the call of nature and would not have waited till 4 p. m. to file his petition.