Uttam Kumar Pradhan and Others vs State of Jharkhand and Others

V.K. Gupta, C.J.

1.Heard.

Section 11 of the Bihar Conduct of Examinations Act, 1981, which deals with the procedure for trial of offences u/s 10 of the said Act, clearly suggests that apart from these offences being cognizable and non-bailable, these shall be disposed of through the procedure of a "summary trial" by the Executive Magistrates. A reading of the impugned order dated 13.3.2002 clearly suggests that the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced without any trial whatsoever. Neither they were arraigned with respect to any charges nor were they afforded any opportunity of pleading "guilty" or "not guilty" to any of the charges. It is a cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that if an accused standing a trial pleads "not guilty" to a charge, the evidence in support of the sub- stance of allegations against him has to be led and only after the trial Court satisfies itself (for reasons to be recorded in writing) that the evidence produced in the trial Court connects the accused to the commission of the offences, it can have the conviction recorded and sentence passed. In this case, this has not been done. The trial of the petitioners, therefore, is not only contrary to Section 11 of the 1981, Act, it is also in patent violation of Clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India.

For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, the impugned order dated 13.3.2002 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Chaibasa Sadar, in G.R Case No. 44 of 2002 is set aside.

Since, however, the petitioners are alleged to have committed offences punishable u/s 10 of 1981, Act, the matter is remanded for fresh trial by a competent Court- It shall be ensured that only such Court tries the petitioners, which is competent in Law to do so and where the Presiding Officer is not shown to have been a witness of any type at any stage of the proceeding.