RAJU PATRA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners namely Raju Patra and Arjun Patra have preferred this revision petition challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh Camp at Bonai in Criminal Appeal No.5/39 (Camp) of 2000 in setting aside the judgment and order of conviction under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and the sentence passed there under on dated 31.5.2000 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bonai in S.T. Case No.115/11 of 1999 and directing the Trial Court to dispose of the case afresh.

(2.) The two petitioners along with four others namely Mishra Patra, Pantu Patra, Rajesh Patra and Parameswar Sethi @ Pari faced trial in the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bonai in S.T. Case No.115/11 of 1999 for offences punishable under sections 395, 397 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.

(3.) The two petitioners namely Raju Patra and Arjuna Patra preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh Camp at Bonai on 26.6.2000 and accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.5/39 (Camp) of 2000 was registered. Another co-accused namely Pantu Patra preferred an appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.6 (Camp) of 2000. The order sheet of the Appellate Court indicates that the appeal of the petitioners was posted to 27.6.2000 for office note and hearing on the point of admission and the LCR was called for from the Court below. On 27.6.2000 the advocate for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor were present. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor were heard and the matter was posted on 28.6.2000 for orders. On 28.6.2000, the appeal was admitted, the argument from both sides were heard along with Criminal Appeal No.6 (Camp) of 2000 preferred by co-accused Pantu Patra and on the very same day, a common judgment was pronounced in both the appeals and the learned Appellate Court has been pleased to direct for remanding the matter to the learned Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law and it was directed to the Trial Court to recall the Investigating Officer to record his evidence in detail and to provide opportunity to the defence for cross-examination. It was further directed that while recording the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., his/their attention should be drawn to those of the articles seized from their respective possession and the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court against the appellants as well as co-accused Pantu Patra who preferred Criminal Appeal No.6 (Camp) of 2000 and the other co-accused convicts who had not preferred any appeal was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal.