SANTOSH KUMAR NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M.R. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kanungo, learned Additional Standing Counsel on behalf of the State.

(2.) IN this application under Section Cr. P.C., the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 11.10.2010 passed in G.R. Case No. 88 of 2008, whereby, the learned J.M.F.C., Baramba has been pleased to frame charges under Sections , , & of I.P.C. against the present accused petitioner in his absence. The order further indicates that the contents of the charge were read over to the "representing lawyer" for the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that this is not permissible in view of the mandatory requirements of Section Cr. P.C. and in particular Sub -Section (2) thereof, which is quoted herein below:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. V. J.J. Mannan @ J.M. John Paul and another, : A.I.R. 2010 SC 618, wherein it is noted that it is mandatory that after framing of charges against the accused person, the contents of the charge shall be read over by the learned Magistrate and explained to the accused and thereafter the accused may be asked whether he pleads guilty or not.