PURNA CHANDRA BISWAL Vs. KANHU @ SUDHANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Panda on behalf of Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite parties. Challenge has been made in the present revision to an order dated 7.7.2008 passed by the learned Ad hoc A.S.J., Balasore in S.T. No.31 of 2008/94 of 2008 whereby the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was pleased to direct to discharge the accused -petitioners under Section 227, Cr.P.C.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assails this order, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned order was passed in the absence of any counsel appearing for the State and hence the prosecution has gone un -represented. Pursuant to order dated 11.9.2009 the petitioner father along with his daughter, namely, Sabita (the alleged victim) with her child as well as O.P. -1 Kanhu @ Sudhansu Sekhar Mohapatra are present in Court in persons. It appears that although attempts for settlement were made between the parties, the same did not end in any fruitful result.

(3.) CONSIDERING the aforesaid facts and the submissions made, I am of the considered view that the learned trial Court ought not to have proceeded to dispose of the application for discharge, filed by the accused persons under Section 227 Cr.P.C. without affording adequate opportunity to the prosecution to place its case. Clearly in the absence of counsel appearing for the State, the prosecution has gone totally unrepresented which itself tantamount to violation not only principles of natural justice but also violation of rights of the informants as well as the victim.