HAKU MIYA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision filed on behalf of Haku Mia, Chalim, Kutub Ali and Mustak Ali accused who were convicted and sentenced by Shri J. L. Dev Barma, B. L., Magistrate first class, Dharmanagar to 4 months' R.I. under Section 379/ 429, Penal Code on 11 -4 -51. Their conviction and sentences were confirmed by the Sessions Judge, in appeal on 22 -6 -51.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge released these petitioners on bail of Rs. 200/ - each till the disposal of the appeal. I am told by the learned counsel for the State that the petitioners have not yet surrendered to their bail bonds in spite of the fact that their appeal was rejected on 22 -6 -51. The petitioner's counsel has admitted this fact. Without surrendering to their bail bonds after the rejection of their appeal as stated above, they have come to this Court on the revision side under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the order thus passed and confirmed in appeal. They are still at large and not present in this Court at the time of hearing the petition. In fact they never presented themselves in this Court. On 13 -8 -51, after filing the present petition through their counsel, they were ordered to file an affidavit as required by the rules of this Court immediately. This was not done toy them, but by one Taleb Ali who is not a petitioner himself. The way in which the petitioners have been behaving and avoiding so far to surrender to their bail bonds after the rejection of their appeal does not entitle them to be heard. They have not acted with bona fides and have not come to this Court with clean hands. When a convict comes to this Court on the revision side under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code after the rejection of his appeal by the Sessions Judge, for setting aside his conviction without surrendering to his bail granted till the disposal of appeal, he has no right to be heard through his counsel. Under the circumstances this Court will not be justfied in exercising its discretionary powers in favour of the petitioners.

(3.) ON facts, both the Courts below have concurred. It has been recently held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, that the revisional powers of the High Court should not be exercised lightly. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases, where the interest of justice required interference for the correction of manifest illegalities or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. I find there is none of the kind in the present case. Even if it be said that the trial of this case was irregular in some way, no prejudice is shown to have resulted to the accused. This petition is rejected.