SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Satin Chandra Pegu
Vs
State of Assam
Appeal (Crl.) 1166 of 2006 (Arising Out of Slp (Crl.) No.4590 of 2006)
(Arijit Pasayat and L. S. Panta, JJ)
15.11.2006
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
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.