BATA ALIAS BATAKRUSHNA BEHERA Vs. ANAMA BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C.

(2.) It appears that after examining the witnesses under Section 292, Cr. P.C. Sri G.N. Patra, Judicial Magistrate First Class (R), Cuttack passed the impugned order on 15-7-1987 taking cognizance under Section 436, IPC against the petitioners. In order to quash this order, the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed.

(3.) The opposite party Anama Behera filed a complaint petition on 24-5-1986. The lower Court directed the complainant to produce his witnesses for enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. In an enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. the complain examined himself and he also examined two witnesses namely, Kailash Behera and Pari Behera, who are named in the complaint petition as witnesses One Jogi Behera, who is also named as eye witness in the complaint petition was not examined. On perusal of the complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses the lower Court was satisfied that there is a prima facie case under Section 436, IPC and hence it took cognizance under Section 436, IPC against the petitioners on 15-7-87. The accused persons appeared on 8-12-87 and they were remanded to jail custody as their bail petition was rejected. Subsequently, they were released on bail on the strength of the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The lower Court took steps to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. It is found that on each date the accused persons remained absent and they were represented through their lawyer. The lower court directed again and again to produce the accused persons, but the accused persons did not appear and they were represented through their advocate and hence there was delay in commitment. On 15-12-88, the lower Court passed an order directing the representing lawyer to produce the accused persons on the next date and it was also made clear that in case of absence of the accused persons their representation would not be allowed. In spite of such a direction, the accused persons did not remain present on 23-12-88 and the representing lawyer again filed a petition for representation of the accused persons. The lower Court gave a time a last chance to produce the accused persons and adjourned the case to 4-1-89. On 4-1-89 also the accused persons did not appear and taking into consideration the past conduct of the accused persons the lower Court passed order to issue N.B. against the accused persons. After this order was passed the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was filed on 1-2-89.