CHANDRAMANI SETHI Vs. PURNA CHANDRA BEHERA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT is the Petitioner in this revision invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 25 -6 -1986.

(2.) THE short facts are that the opposite parties were convicted under Sections 447 and 504, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - on both counts and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of thirty days each. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate was challenged by preferring an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1985 and the said appeal was transferred by the Sessions Judge to the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, on hearing the arguments of both sides reserved the judgment, but on finding that an appeal is not maintainable, instead of dismissing the appeal submitted the appeal records back to the Court of the Sessions Judge for consideration as to whether the appeal can be converted to revision. This was obviously done as the Additional Sessions Judge was not authorised to convert an appeal to revision. The Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated. 25 -6 -1986 converted the appeal to a revision and again transferred the same to the Second Additional Sessions Judge to be disposed of in accordance with law.

(3.) THE expression "criminal procedure" means the procedure relating to crimes. The idea of a judicial proceeding is inherent in the word "crime" and, therefore, the procedure envisage "Courts". A substantive law determines the rights while a procedural law deals with the remedies. The Code of Criminal Procedure is the adjective law as it aids and protects the substantive law and it has four -fold functions, such as: (i) selecting the jurisdiction having cognisance of the matter in question; (ii) ascertaining the appropriate court for a proper decision; (iii) setting in motion the machinery of justice for the decision; and, (iv) providing for the physical force to make the Court's decision effectual. (See Element of Jurisprudence, By Holland, 13th. Edn., page 359). The word "procedure" has a wider meaning and includes the whole course of practice. From the issuing of the first process by which suitors are brought before the Court to the execution of the last process on the final judgment. The word "procedure" has been defined by Wharton to mean, the mode in which successive steps in litigation are taken and it is a part of the machinery for obtaining legal rights that is machinery as distinguished from its products. In India, there was no uniform law of criminal procedure for the entire country. There were separate Acts for the Presidency Towns and the Provinces. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882, for the first time gave a uniform law of procedure for the whole of India and it was replaced by Act V of 1898 which was then superseded by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). In the Code of 1973, which is based on the recommendations of the Law Commission, three basic considerations have weighed with the Government; (a) an accused should get a fair trial in accordance with the accepted principles of natural justice; (b) every effort should be made to avoid delay in investigation and trial which is harmful not only to the individual involved but also to society; and, (c) the procedure should not be complicated and should to the utmost extent possible, ensure fair deal to the poorer sections of the community. The Indian Penal Code contains the substantial criminal law while the Code of Criminal Procedure supplements it by rules of procedure. The Code thus provides a machinery for the punishment of offences against the substantive criminal law and to ensure to the accused a fair trial for the ascertainment of his guilt or innocence. The term "Code" means a collection or system of laws. It is complete in containing all the laws in force governing the subject which it treats; it is logical, scientific and arranged conveniently and it is clear and concise to avoid prolixity and ambiguity. Under Section 4 of the Code, all offences under the Indian Penal Code are required to be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code. Section 6 deals with the power of the State Government to notify and declare regarding establishment of a Court of Session. Section 9(3) authorises the High Court to appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise the jurisdiction in a Court of Session. Thus, the powers and the parameters of a Court of Session or the Additional Sessions Judge are circumscribed by different provisions, in the Code itself. With this background, I shall examine the several contentions raised by Mr. Mohanty appearing for the Petitioner.