SATIN CHANDRA PEGU versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 1172 · Decided: 15-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

~ .. 
A 
SA TIN CHANDRA PEGU 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
NOVEMBER 15, 2006 
B 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSlNGHPANTA,JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
c 
s. 397 r/w ss.401 and 482-Criminal revision before High Court-
Counsel for revisionist not present as he had been appointed State Counsel-
Revision dismissed after hearing counsel for State-Held, in peculiar 
circumstances, matter remitted to High Court for hearing afresh-Practice 
and Procedure. 
D 
The appellant was convicted by trial court under s.409 IPC. His appeal 
was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. He filed a revision before the High 
·Court. When the matter was taken up, none appeared for him. However, the 
High Court dismissed the revision petition after hearing counsel for the State. 
,_ 
In the present appeal it was contended for the appellant that the counsel 
E engaged by him in the High Court was appointed as a Counsel for the State 
and this position was not conveyed to him. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: It has not been disputed that the counsel who was appearing for 
F 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 the peculiar circumstances, the order of the High Court is 
set aside and the matter is remitted to it for fresh hearing. (1174-B-CJ 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1166 of 
2006. 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 12-5-2006 of the High Court 
H 
1172 
< 
~ 
SATINCHANDRAPEGUv. STATE OF ASSAM [PASAYAT,J.] 
1173 
"' 
/ 
ofGauhati in Criminal in Revision No.255of1999. 
A 
P.K. Goswami, A. Henry and Rajiv Mehta for the Appellant. 
N.G., J.R. Luwang (for Mis. Corporate Law Group), for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : 
B 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, 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. 
c 
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 D 
was that he had mis-appropriated a sum of Rs.91,006/-. While taking over 
charge as Deputy Inspector of Schools on 12.11. l 991, 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 
E 
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 
F 
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 G 
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 neg1igence on his part. 
H 
... 
1174 
SUPREME COUR r REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
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 
B for the appellant in the Criminal Revision had been appointed as a counsel 
for the Sta

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.