STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SARAT CHANDRA PADHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, upholding his conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 279 and 337. I. P. C.

(2.) FACTS . The injured (P.W. 2) was returning home from the market on 13 -1 -1979 at about 6.30 p.m. When he was in front of Puri Hotel near the house of one Sana Mian, the Petitioner came driving a scooter and dashed against him. As a result, he fell down, injured and one of his legs was fractured. After the accident, the Petitioner went away on the plea of getting a rickshaw to remove the injured to the hospital, but he never returned. Ultimately, however, he was removed

(3.) MISS . S. Panda, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, contended that after the final report was accepted by order dated 7 -5 -1979 the investigating officer had no authority according to the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) to further investigate into the case without there being a direction by the Judicial Magistrate and so the case could not proceed according to the charge -sheet and the supplementary charge -sheet, cognizance of the offences under Sections 279 and 338, I. P. C. could not be taken and the whole procedure that was adopted was not in accordance with law. She further urged that witnesses were not found at a particular stage of the investigation, for which a final report was submitted to court. The fact that subsequently witnesses were produced in supporter, of the alleged accident will itself show that the prosecution witnesses had not seen the actual occurrence and came forward, to support the prosecution case, because they were interested in P.Ws. 1 and 2. In such circumstances, their evidence being wholly unreliable should be rejected and the Petitioner acquitted of the charges.