S.K.Mishra, J. - (1.)The petitioners, being the accused for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 294, 506, 427 and 341/149 of the IPC in G.R. Case No.112 of 2014 of the court of learned J.M.F.C., Purushottampur, arising out of Purushottampur P.S. Case No.113 of 2014, assails the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur in S.T. Case No.13 of 2013 cancelling the Vakalatnama and issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest against the accused persons.
(2.)What should be the duty of the court when it is confronted with a situation where the conducting counsel duly engaged as per the procedure laid down pleds "no instructions" on the date of posting of a Sessions Case wherein witnesses were in attendance is to be addressed in this case.
(3.)Briefly stated on the basis of an FIR submitted by Ganesh Nahak before the I.I.C., Purushottampur Police Station registered as P.S. Case No.113 of 2014 for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 294, 506, 427 and 341/149 of the IPC, giving rise to G.R. Case No.112/2014 of the court of learned J.M.F.C., Purushottampur. The petitioners were granted bail, chargesheet was submitted against them. After taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur and has been registered as S.T. Case No.13 of 201 The case was posted for hearing to 18.12.2017, on that date, the accused persons were absent. The learned counsel engaged by them, who has executed Vakalatnama duly stamped, and presented to the court, which forms part of the record stated in a memo before the trial court that the accused persons are not turning up, and hence, he is not interested to conduct the case on behalf of the accused persons. Hence, Vakalatnama was cancelled. The accused persons were found absent on call. The learned A.P.P produces attendance of four witnesses for the prosecution. Thereafter, on repeated call as the accused persons did not turn up, the court issued N.B.W.(A) against the present accused persons, for absence of petitioners before this Court. Obviously, as the witnesses could not be examined, they were discharged.