CHANDRASEKHAR PATNAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant stands convicted under Sections 475 and 381 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 150/ - on each court in default of payment of fine, he is to undergo R.I. for one month more on each count. The substances of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) MR . Kanungo, the learned counsel for the appellant criticised the judgement of the appellate court as not in accordance with law, inter alia, on the grounds that there is absolutely no discussion regarding the particular offences for which the appellant has been convicted, no independent assessment and/or sifting of the evidence on record has been made in order to examine if the findings in the impugned judgement are correct or not; and that it has proceeded mostly on irrelevant considerations.

(3.) HAVING heard the counsel of the parties and having perused the judgement of the lower appellate court I am satisfied that there is enough justification for the criticism raised by Mr. Kanungo. In the impugned judgement the court below has practically devoted his entire efforts only to meet the contentions raised before him on behalf of the appellant, and in doing so it merely referred, in general, to the summary of the evidence which may be on record, without particularly referring to the evidence of any witness, on each aspect of the matter. There is absolutely no assessment, sifting or discussion of the, evidence on record with regard to the offences on which the appellant stands convicted. He has not at all referred to the evidence adduced on behalf of the defence. The appellate court in writing out judgements in Criminal Appeals should make the best of endeavour to follow the repeated pronouncements and observations in this respect made by the Supreme Court and by this Court in several decisions, some of which have been noted above.