ARTA PANDIT Vs. MUSAMET CHANDURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Athgarh, under section 448, I. P. C. , and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Petitioners Chaitan Pandit and Arta Pandit were also further convicted under Section 323, I. P. C. , and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60 each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days each. On thus being convicted they appealed before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, before whom the appeal remained pending for some time, and thereafter was transferred to the file of the Additional sessions Judge, Cuttack. The Additional Sessions Judge on a perusal of the records of the case for himself confirmed the convictions and sentences passed against the petitioners by his judgment dated 21-11-1966 in Criminal Appeal No. 194-C of 1966. Hence this revision.

(2.) I find from the order sheet of the Sessions Court that the appeal before the sessions Judge was admitted on 29-7-1966, and it came up before him on several dates for incidental orders, and on 10-10-1966 the Sessions Judge passed an order as follows:

(3.) IN this revision petition it is averred on affidavit that neither the petitioners nor their lawyers were aware of the fact that the appeals had been transferred from the file of Sri L, Panda, Sessions Judge, Cuttack, to the file of Sri B. Misra, additional Sessions Judge; and no notice of such transfer was given to them in any manner whatsoever. It is also stated that Mr. Panda, Sessions Judge, Cuttack, being absent from Cuttack on 21-11-1968, the petitioners and their lawyers did not take any step on that date, and were not ready for the hearing of the case. But as soon as the petitioners came to know that their appeal had been transferred to the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, they immediately filed a petition before him by about 12-30 p. m. on the same day, stating, amongst other things, that they were ignorant of the said appeal having been transferred to his file, and prayed for a short adjournment of the hearing of the appeal. By the time that petition was filed, it is alleged in this revision petition that the learned additional Sessions Judge had left the Court-room, and was inside his chamber. Order No. 8 recorded later on 21-11-1966 by the Additional Sessions Judge suggests that the said petition was fifed after the judgment in the said appeal had been delivered. It is of course asserted in the revision petition on affidavit that the said petition was filed at 12-30 p. m. , whereas the learned Additional Sessions judge states in his order recorded earlier on 21-11-1966 that he waited till 12-45 p. m. and as no body turned up before him, he disposed o! the appeal as stated above.