DIBAKAR BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) The short question that arises in the revision is that should the learned Sessions Judge dismiss the Criminal Appeal for default or non-prosecution?

(3.) The petitioners faced trial for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 447/323/236/34, I.P.C. in G.R. Case No. 588 of 1989 of the court of learned J.M.F.C, Nimapara. After properly conducted trial, the learned J.M.F.C, Nimapara held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 336/447/34 of the I.P.C., but held that the petitioner are guilty of the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and, therefore, he convicted them and sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. Aggrieved by such judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri, which was transferred to the court of learned 2nd Add. Sessions Judge, Puri and was registered as Cri. Appeal No. 43 of 2012. The case was posted to 15-5-2014. When the petitioners-appellants remained absent and no steps were taken on their behalf, the appeal was dismissed for default of the petitioners-appellants. Such order passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri is assailed in this revision.