STATE OF ORISSA Vs. AGASTI KUMAR SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and on consent of the parties, the Suo Motu Criminal Revision is disposed of at the stage of admission in the following manner.

(2.) A report was submitted on 21.04.2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput intimating the Court that opposite party No.1 being the then S.D.J.M., Nabarangpur tried and disposed of G.R. Case No.332 of 2008 when cognizance of the offence under Section 304, I.P.C. was taken by him, but he undertook the trial for the offence under Section 304 -A, I.P.C. and convicted the accused (the other opposite party) for the said offence. On perusal of the report and the L.C.R., this Court being prima facie satisfied about the assertions of the Sessions Judge regarding the misconduct of the S.D.J.M. and also about illegality in the trial, issued notice to both the opposite parties. So far as it relates to the Judicial Officer, he was asked to show cause for the alleged misconduct and illegality, whereas the accused -opposite party was asked to show cause as against the motion for re -trial in view of the provision in Section 300(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code").

(3.) IT is pertinent to mention that thereafter the accused did not furnish bail bond till conclusion of the trial. On 24.12.2008, police papers were supplied to the accused and learned S.D.J.M. ordered to put up the record for further orders on 25.11.2008. Normally, in such a case, i.e. when the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, on supply of police papers under Section 207, Cr.P.C., learned S.D.J.M. should have passed the order of commitment under Section 209, Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, on 25.11.2008, the order -sheet indicates that the case was transferred to the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nabarangpur for disposal according to law and there was interpolation in the second line to add that particulars of the offence committed under Section 300 (A) of the I.P.C. was read over and explained to the accused and the latter pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. There again the question remains, as to if the case was transferred to the file of the J.M.F.C. functioning in the same stations, there was no necessity for the S.D.J.M. to pass the interpolated order by explaining accusation under Section 304(A), I.P.C. Thereafter, the case was put up before the J.M.F.C. on the selfsame day i.e. on 25.11.2008 and adjourned to 08.12.2008 and 22.12.2008. On two latter dates, the J.M.F.C. being absent, learned S.D.J.M. signed the order as in -charge of that Court and passed order to issue summons to the charge -sheeted witnesses, but the column No.4 of the order -sheet being blank relating to the compliance of that order, it goes without saying that summons were not issued to the witnesses. On 05.01.2009, the other adjourned date, opposite party No.1 withdrew the case to his file by stating that