PICHHARU SATNAMI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 1.11.1994 of the Sessions Judge, Kalahandi -Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in dismissingthe Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1992 filed by the appellant against the order of conviction in 2(a) C.C. No. 15 of 1992 (T.R. No. 45 of 1992) of the Court of S.D.J.M., Nawapara. Petitioner was convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 47(a) of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - and the impugned judgment has to be set aside to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. In that respect, the relevant circumstances and the illegality of the concerned Sessions Judge is noted as below :

(2.) THE accused belongs to a village under Komna Police Station within the territorial jurisdiction of the newly constituted Nawapara District. His Advocate also belongs to Nuapada Bar Association. The appeal was presented in the Court of Sessions Judge at Bhawanipatna on 17.8.1992, it was admitted on 18.8.1992 and thereafter the appeal suffered adjournments till 22.9.1993 on the ground of non -receipt of the LCR and thereafter on 5.1.1994 for no reasons whatsoever. On most of the aforesaid dates learned counsel for the appellant came from Nuapada and appeared before the Sessions Judge at Bhawanipatna. Again on 7.7.1994 learned counsel for the appellant appeared but learned Sessions Judge adjourned the case for no good reason and on the next date i.e. on 28.10.1994 he noted the absence of the Advocate for the appellant, heard argument from the Public Prosecutor and thereafter on 1.11.1994 pronounced the impugned judgment. It is unfortunate that the concerned Presiding Officer not only behaved arbitrarily but also illegally in as much as he could not have heard the Criminal Appeal in that manner. If the counsel engaged by the appellant did not appear and if the appellate court did not think it proper to issue notice to the appellant to appear and argue, at least, he could have requested some senior counsel from the local Bar to address the Court as amicus curiae. Without taking any such steps the then Sessions Judge disposed of the appeal by dismissing it after hearing the Public Prosecutor. This Court has no hesitation to not only disapprove such an illegality of the Sessions Judge but also to set aside the impugned judgment delivered by the Sessions Judge. Since that Presiding Officer has already retired in the meantime, no action is suggested against him.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid findings and reasonings the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1996 is set aside and the appeal is remanded for disposal in accordance with law and the aforesaid direction. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed.