SATIN CHANDRA PEGU Vs. STATE OF ASSAM
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-103
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GAUHATI)
Decided on November 15,2006

SATIN CHANDRA PEGU Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

GAYATRI MISRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-202] [RELIED ON]
UNION OF INDIA VS. C A T ALLHABAD BENCH [LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR KUMAR MAHTO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
LALU THOMAS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-11-34] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)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.

(3.)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.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.