Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1166 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Satin Chandra Pegu
RESPONDENT:
State of Assam
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/11/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.4590 of 2006)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this Appeal is to the order of a learned
Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court dismissing the
Criminal Revision filed by the appellant.
The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable
under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
’IPC’) by learned sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai.
The allegation against the appellant was that he had mis-
appropriated a sum of Rs.91,006/-. While taking over charge
as Deputy Inspector of Schools on 12.11.1991, he had
received cash amounting to Rs.91,796/-, as per the accounts
maintained. When the cash was physically verified only
Rs.790/-was found, and it was, therefore, inferred that he had
committed misappropriation of cash. He faced trial for alleged
commission of offence punishable under Section 409 IPC.
Questioning his conviction and sentence of two years with fine
as imposed by the trial Court, an appeal was filed before the
Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji dismissed
the Criminal appeal upholding the conviction and the sentence
imposed. A Criminal Revision in terms of Section 397 read
with Section 401 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short the ’Cr.P.C.’) was filed. When the
matter was taken up on 12.5.2006, none appeared for the
petitioner. Therefore, learned Single Judge dismissed the
revision petition after hearing learned counsel for the State.
In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that learned counsel who was appearing
for the appellant in the High Court had been appointed as a
counsel for the State and, therefore, could not have appeared
for the appellant. Unfortunately, this position was not
brought to the notice of the appellant and, therefore, the
appellant should not be made to suffer. It is pointed out that
the appellant has always pursued the remedies and there was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
never any negligence on his part.
In response, learned counsel for the State submitted that
though the appellant had not been represented by a counsel,
learned Single Judge elaborately dealt with the factual and
legal position after hearing learned counsel for the State and
perusing the records.
It has not been disputed that the learned counsel who
was appearing for the appellant in the Criminal Revision had
been appointed as a counsel for the State and could not have
appeared for the appellant. There is also no material to show
that the appellant after having knowledge of such appointment
of his counsel failed to appoint another lawyer to conduct the
case before the High Court.
In view of this peculiar circumstances, it would be in the
interest of justice to set aside the impugned order of the High
Court and remit the matter to it for fresh hearing. To avoid
unnecessary delay, we direct that the matter shall be listed
before an appropriate Bench on 11.12.2006 and learned Chief
Justice of the High Court shall pass necessary orders in that
regard. It is undertaken by learned counsel for the appellant
that another counsel shall be engaged to appear for the
appellant before the High Court before the aforesaid date.
Since the matter was pending before the High Court for nearly
seven years, we request the High Court to explore the
possibility of disposal of the Criminal Revision as early as
practicable. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that an
application for bail shall be filed before the High Court.
Needless to say that if such application is filed, the same shall
be dealt with in accordance with law.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
28268