KANDHA BEHERA Vs. MULIA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two bunches of Criminal Revisions and Criminal Misc. Cases are interconnected and so were heard analogously and would be disposed of by this judgment. Facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of the cases are shortly thus: One Mulia Mohanty filed a complaint against Kandha Behera and seven others alleging that they had formed an unlawful assembly and confined him and provoked him to cause a breach of the peace. The Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate Talcher found the accused persons guilty under Sections 143 and 504, I.P.C. in I.C.C. 42 of 1971 and passed a sentence of fifteen days rigorous imprisonment on each count on 14.4.1972, the sentences to run concurrently. However, the learned S.D.J.M. released all of them under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on their executing a bond with one surety for Rs. 1000/ - each.

(2.) THIS order of release of the accused persons under the Probation of Offenders Act being verily illegal somehow came to the notice of this Court which started a suo motu proceeding numbered as Criminal Revision No.621 of 1972. Therein all the accused persons were noticed but accused Nos.3 and 5 did not appear. It was disposed of by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri G.K. Misra with the following observation.

(3.) AT the time when the revision was heard by this Court the record of the Criminal Appeal was before it. Any order which the High Court could pass while hearing an appeal, it could also pass while disposing of a revision arising out of that case as per the above provision with the limitation that if it enhanced the punishment then only the parties will be heard in the matter. In the instant case, the parties have been given notice and they have appeared except accused Nos.3 and 5 and they did not challenge the legality of the conviction as already quoted. Thus the accused persons were given a full hearing and in their presence the above order was passed. The portions quoted would unmistakably show that this Court had gone into the merits of the case and has opined about the merits of the case also. Instead of the accused persons making a grievance that their appeal had not been heard the position is that their appeal was heard by a higher forum in High Court instead of Sessions Court and in that background they cannot have any grievance. That apart, the review petitions filed are much beyond the time and are not countenanced by law. In any view of the matter, the criminal revisions and criminal Misc. cases have no merit. Hence all these petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.