UDAYANATH BARIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under Ss. 397/401, 397/401 read with S.482 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been filed by sixteen petitioners who along with two others, namely, Banka Mohapatra and Krupasindhu Prusty, faced trial for the alleged offences of forming unlawful assembly, wrongfully restraining, obstructing public servants in discharge of their public functions and preventing service of summons and other proceeding and preventing publication thereof u/Ss. 143/341/ of the Penal Code (described in short as 'IPC') in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhadrak in G.R. Case No. 137 of 1979 (Trial No. 137 of 1984) in which each of them has been found guilty under Ss. 143/186, IPC and has been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- on each count and in default to undergo R.I. for fifteen days on each count. Originally there were two other accused persons, namely, Udhab Panda and Daitari Sukla, the trial against whom was split up for separate trial as non-bailable warrant of arrest had been issued against them on 11-4-1984 and process u/Ss. 82 and 83 of the Code had been directed to be issued against them on 22-1-1985, and actually was issued on 16-4-1985. The Court below on 11-5-1984 had directed issue of non-bailable warrants against accused Udhab, Daitari, Banka and Krupasindhu. Thereafter on all relevant dates it had been recorded that these four persons were absent. The order dt. 22-1-1985 to which reference has been made earlier also shows that process u/Ss. 82 and 83 of the Code was issued against all these four persons. Thereafter petitions u/S.317, of the Code were filed on 26-2-1985, 10-4-1985 and 15-5-1985. On the significant date, i.e., 22-7-1985 also the petition u/s. 317 was in respect of sixteen persons. Therefore, the aforesaid four persons had not appeared in Court to face trial. Unfortunately, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class had split up the trial against only Udhab and Daitari whereas he proceeded against the other two, i.e., Krupasindhu and Banka. This is a serious lapse.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27-2-1979 at 7 a.m. the Sales Officer, Co-operative Society with his staff and the Executive Magistrate and armed police reserved force went to village Susiladeipur for realisation of outstanding loan amounts and at village Susiladeipur after serving notice on one Suka Dibya attached her property for realisation of the loan amount outstanding against her. During course of attachment the said Suka Dibya absconded and the accused persons led the villagers to the said village into a mob which obstructed the officers of the Co-operative Society from removing the attached property and also threatened to assault them and obstructed them from coming out of the village by putting logs and such other articles on the road. The Secretary of the Charampa Co-operative Society reported the matter to the Officer-in-charge, Bhadrak Police Station by a written report which was handed over to the S.I. at the spot and the S.I. of Police took up investigation on the strength of the F.I.R. On the strength of the F.I.R., Bhadrak Police Station Case No. 35 of 1979 was registered and during the course of investigation witnesses were examined, relevant documents were seized and on completion of investigation charge-sheet under Ss. 143/341/186/173, IPC was submitted against the accused petitioners.

(3.) During trial the accused persons pleaded not guilty and took the plea of complete denial. They pleaded that the case has been falsely foisted against them on account of political rivalry.