SWARUP KUMAR BISWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a peculiar case where the accused-petitioner has been convicted for an offence under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code without affording proper opportunity to him to lead his defence evidence. Not only that, but also his application for grant of certified copy of the order was refused by the court and the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed before this Court the certified copy of his application on which the learned Judge-in-charge of the Copying Department has mentioned that the application was rejected as per order of the Assistant Sessions Judge as the same applicant had no right to get copy of order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore, filed this revision petition quoting therein the order dated 21-12-1993 passed by the lower court.

(2.) Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been a clear violation of the rights of the accused to defend himself for want of a copy of the impugned order in order to approach this Court There has also been violation of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 233 and sub-section (6) of section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He therefore, submits that the order of sentence passed against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and the proceedings remanded to the lower court.

(3.) The learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State is not able to support the order passed, by the lower court. It is wonderful to note that certified copies are not granted to the accused because of some order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Paragraph 17 of the application made by the petitioner for grant of certified copy reads as under: Col. No. 17 (Remarks) The application is rejected as per order of the A.S.I. as the same applicant has no right to get copy of order. There is no bar in law prohibiting supply of certified copy of the accused who wants to file an appeal or revision before the higher courts. Neither the Judge-in-charge of the Copying Department nor the Assistant Sessions Judge on whose order such copy was refused, has quoted the provisions of law which goes to show that either they arc ignorant of the provisions of law or they do not care to go through the provisions of law. Such an order refusing the certified copy of the order is uncalled for in the history of the Judiciary.