SURESH MANDAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter has been listed for admission, on the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is accused in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2001 of the Court of Learned Adl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri for the offence under Sections 306, 304 -B, 498 -A, IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act failed to appear at the stage of accused statement for a considerable time for which the Learned Trial Court rejected the prayer for adjournment presented by the Learned Counsel for the accused and after hearing the argument on the same day, delivered the judgment, in which he convicted the accused -petitioner for the offence under Sections 306, 304 -B, 498 -A. IPC. Since the accused -petitioner was not available for hearing on the matter of sentence, Learned Trial Court issued N.B.W. along with process under Sections 82 and 83, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and also noticed the bailor to produce the accused -petitioner. This order of the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Malkangiri is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) LEARNED Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the state, on the other hand, argues that despite the direction of this Court passed in Misc. Case No. 7235 of 2001, the petitioner did not appear in the Court and so there was no alternative left to the Trial Court than to close the case hear the argument and deliver the judgment.