SAMSAD BEGUM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 29.07.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2005 rejecting the application filed by the informant to argue before that Court.

(2.) THE case of the Petitioner is that the Appellants have been convicted under Sections 498 -A and 307 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the Assistant Sessions Judge -cum -Chief Judicial Magistrate.(Special), Cuttack in S.T. Case No. 734/ 90 of 2005(sic). They had been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for three months, for the offence under Section 498 -A IPC, to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 307 IPC, and to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, two appeals have been preferred by the accused persons before the Sessions Judge, which have been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2005. The appeals were posted for hearing to 30.06.2006. On that day, the appeals were heard in part and were posted to to 03.07.2006 for further hearing. The order -sheet dated 03.07.2006 reveals that on that day the matter was heard from the side of the Appellants. Subsequently, a petition was filed by the informant Samsad Begum (Petitioner herein) through Mr. G.N. Mohapatra, Advocate, praying for time. The matter was posted to 06.07.2006 for hearing from the side of the Respondent. On that day, the Respondent was heard and the appeals were posted for delivery of judgment to 19.07.2006. On 17.06.2006, the records were put up on the strength of an advance petition along with an application of the informant to allow her to argue the matter. On 19.07 .2006, the case was posted for objection and hearing of the petition filed by the informant. The petition was heard on 29.06.2006 and was rejected. However, Learned Counsel for the informant was permitted to file written notes of argument after serving copies thereof on the Counsel for the Parties on or before 03.08.2006.

(3.) MR . Nayak, Learned Additional Standing Counsel strenuously urged that all the Sessions Cases should be conducted by the Public Prosecutor appointed by the Government. In this connection, he drew the attention of the Court to the provisions of Sections 301 and 302 Cr.P.C. He also placed reliance on Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand and Anr., 1999 SCC 1277.