BOOTA RAM AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The action of the appellate Court in hearing and deciding the appeal of the present petitioners by hearing the Public Prosecutor alone in the absence of petitioners and their counsel is questioned in the present revision petition. Submission is that this act of the appellate Court can not be legally sustained. Though the petitioners have attempted to justify the reason for which they and their counsel could not appear before the appellate Court on the date it decided the appeal but that, in my view, may not be very relevant to decide the issue in view of the right to be represented by a counsel in a criminal trial being fairly settled and may appear to be a part of the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The facts, being noted in brief to get the hang of the issue raised, are that the petitioners were convicted for offences under Ss. 323, 324, 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for a period of six months whereas their co -accused Manohar Lal was directed to be released on probation for a good conduct. Though the petitioners were prosecuted on the basis of an FIR lodged against them, Boota Ram (petitioner) had filed a complaint against Vijay Kumar, Basant Lal and Sushil Kumar under Ss. 323, 324, 326 read with Sec. 34 IPC. Both the cases were tried together and decided through two separate judgments on 17.8.2006. The accused in the cross -version were also convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonments. They had also impugned their conviction and award of sentence by filing appeal. The appeal filed by the petitioners was admitted and their sentence was suspended on 9.9.2006. The zimni orders produced in the revision petition would show that the case was listed for hearing the appeal on number of dates and was adjourned to be taken on subsequent dates. In the meantime, the petitioners moved an application for leading additional evidence. Appellate Court issued notice of the application and reply to the same was filed. On all these dates, the appellants were present before the court with their counsel. The connected appeal filed by the complainant referred to above was also adjourned from time to time and was finally listed for hearing on 27.7.2007. The zimni orders passed in this connected appeal are also reproduced in the revision till 27.7.2007. It is made out by the petitioners that their appeal was also adjourned to 27.7.2007 and not to 25.7.2007, on which date it was taken up and decided by the Appellate Court in their absence and in the absence of their counsel. This, according to the petitioners, was the reason for their absence on 25.7.2007, when this appeal was decided by hearing Public Prosecutor only.

(3.) Be that as it may, the question that requires consideration is whether the Appellate Court is justified in deciding the appeal of the petitioners without giving opportunity of hearing to them or to their counsel?