PITAMBAR PRUSTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the conviction under Section 350, Cr.P.C. and sentence thereunder to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days, affirmed by the appellate court, petitioner approached this Court.

(2.) Short facts of this case are that the petitioner was working as M.V.I. under the R.T.O., Sambalpur. Summons were issued to him to attend the court as a witness in G.R. Case No. 185 of 1985. Summons were personally received by the petitioner on 21-7-1987 and the date to which the case was posted was 25-7-1987. As the petitioner did not attend court as a witness on 25-7-1987, a proceeding under Section 350, Cr.P.C. was initiated against him which was registered as Misc. Case No.92 of 1987. Though notice was issued in Misc. Case No. 92 of 1987, the petitioner also did not appear in the said proceeding. Learned Magistrate without issuing N.B.W. or without taking any coercive measure for securing attendance of the petitioner in the proceeding, passed the judgment under Section. 350, Cr.P.C, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. Being aggrieved by the order in the proceeding under Section 350, Cr.P.C. the petitioner filed an appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1988. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on the ground that since the petitioner is a Government servant he should have been aware of the responsibility when he received the summons in G.R. Case No. 185 of 1985. Since he did not appear in the court though summons were duly served on him, it tantamounts to disregarding the court's order and therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the petitioner in the proceeding initiated under Section 350, Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the procedure as visualised under Section 350, Cr.P.C. having not been followed the conviction thereunder is not sustainable. Learned advocate for the State on the other hand submits that when the petitioner did not appear in spite of notice, the court had no other option but to proceed against him according to law.