Dhadi Charan Rout and Others vs State of Orissa

B.K. Behera, J.—The petitioners stood convicted u/s 379 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code by the trial Court and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. As the impugned order of conviction and sentences had been passed by a Magistrate of the first class, the petitioners made an application in revision which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack. Instead of deciding the revision on merits, the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded the matter to the trial Court by affording an opportunity to the State as the complainant to adduce further documentary evidence which had not been adduced by it at the trial. As has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and has fairly been submitted by the learned Additional Standing Counsel, the learned Additional Sessions Judge went legally wrong in making the order of remand only for the purpose of filling up some lacunae which might have been left by the prosecution. In my view, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is to be set aside with a direction that the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall dispose of the revision in accordance with law and I so direct.

The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed.