Crl. Revision No.1327 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.1327 of 2004 DECIDED ON : 25.05.2009. R.D.Dixit Revisionist VERSUS State of Punjab Respondent. CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the Revisionist. Ms. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent. JORA SINGH,J. R.D.Dixit, through the instant revision has challenged the impugned judgment dated 12.5.2004 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Vide the impugned judgment, appeal against the judgment/ order dated 11.7.1998, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar was dismissed. First Information Report No. 67 dated Crl. Revision No.1327 of 2004 2 28.3.1993 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was registered against R.D.Dixit revisionist and the revisionist was convicted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28.3.1993, Assistant Sub Inspector, Sukhdev Singh along with the police party was present near by-pass chowk at Verka in connection with routine duty. Information was received from Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar regarding death of Joginder Singh and admission of Shiv Lal Duggal, injured. Harbhajan Singh met the police party and reported to the police that he had gone to village Peerowal and after meeting his relative, was returning from village Peerowal. Gurdip Singh his relation was also with him on a scooter. They were near village Pandori, Joginder Singh and Shiv Lal Duggal were sighted while going towards Amritsar City and that Joginder Singh was his brother-in-law, who on seeing him had stopped his scooter which was being driven by Shiv Lal Duggal. After parking the scooter, he Crl. Revision No.1327 of 2004 3 wanted to cross the road to meet the complainant. In the meantime, truck No. DEL 1883 came from the side of Majitha. Truck was being driven rashly and negligently without blowing the horn and was struck against Joginder Singh and Shiv Lal Duggal. After the accident, truck driver had fled away from the spot. After inquiry, driver of the truck was found to be the revisionist. Injured were shifted to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar when Joginder was declared dead. After recording the statement of Harbhajan Singh, the same was sent to the police station, on the basis of which formal First Information Report was recorded. Inquest report was prepared. Dead body was handed over to the police officials for post mortem examination. After investigating the spot, rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. Offending vehicle was taken into police possession and was got tested mechanically. Revisionist was arrested. After completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. The revisionist was charged under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Crl. Revision No.1327 of 2004 4 In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined nine witnesses. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the entire allegation. Revisionist denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Defence version of the revisionist is that he was falsely implicated. In defence, three witnesses were produced. Ultimately, the revisionist was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, as stated above. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, appeal was preferred, but the same was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment. I have heard Mr. Veneet Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent and have gone through the file very carefully and thoroughly. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that appeal was decided in the absence of the revisionist. Neither the revisionist was present nor his counsel. Opportunity was not given to the revisionist or his counsel to argue the case. If on 12.5.2004 revisionist was not present in Court and his counsel also failed to appear to argue the case then bail order could easily be Crl. Revision No.1327 of 2004 5 cancelled. Revisionist should have been summoned through bailable or non-bailable warrants. Notice could easily be issued to counsel for the revisionist to appear and argue the case. Appeal was presented on 18.7.1998. Revisionist continued to appear before the Appellate Court. On 4.1.2002 and 18.7.2003 revisionist was not present. Application was moved to exempt his personal appearance. On 27.11.2003 again application was moved to exempt the personal appearance of the revisionist because date of hearing i.e. 26.11.2003 was declared a holiday. On 28.1.2004 Presiding Officer was on leave. Application was moved to exempt the personal appearance of the revisionist, on the next day i.e. 31.3.2004 revisionist was not present. Application was moved to exempt the personal appearance of the revisionist but the application was rejected on that day. Counsel for the revisionist was present. If the revisionist was not present then argument could easily be heard because counsel for the revisionist was present in Court. Next date of hearing was on 12.5.2004. Non- bailable warrants issued were received un-executed. Appeal was rejected after hearing Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. From the day of institution of appeal i.e. 18.7.1998 to the date of its decision i.e. Crl. Revision No.1327 of 2004 6 12.5.2004 appeal was adjourned for about 30 times. Only on 2-3 dates revisionist had failed to appear in Court and his personal appearance was exempted. Revisionist was employee of the CRPF. Presence of revisionist on every date of hearing was not possible. By exempting the personal appearance of the revisionist, appeal could easily be heard in the presence of defence counsel. One chance be given to the revisionist to argue the appeal. Impugned order be set aside and case be remanded back to the First Appellate Court for fresh decision. As per the convenience of the Court, appeal is to be argued. Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab argued that revisionist is the employee of the CRPF and was being represented by the defence counsel. If the revisionist was not present then after hearing the counsel for the revisionist and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, appeal could easily be disposed of. No objection if the case is remanded to the First Appellate Court for fresh decision after hearing the counsel for the revisionist and the State Counsel. I have gone through the file and am of the opinion that submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist seems to be reasonable one. Revisionist was Crl. Revision No.1327 of 2004 7 convicted and sentenced by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar on 11.7.1998. Against the judgment of conviction and order, appeal was preferred by the revisionist. Revisionist continued to appear before the First Appellate Court from 18.7. 1998 to 12.5.2004. Appeal was adjourned for about 30 times. Only on 2-3 occasions, application was moved to exempt the personal appearance of the revisionist. On number of dates appeal was adjourned on the ground that the same was not listed for arguments. Revisionist was being represented by the defence counsel. If the revisionist was not present then after exempting the personal appearance of the revisionist, appeal could easily be decided by hearing the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist and the State counsel. In case, revisionist failed to appear in Court and counsel for the revisionist was not ready to argue the appeal then First Appellate Court should have appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the revisionist. Notice could easily be issued to the counsel for the revisionist to appear and assist the Court and if after appearance counsel for the revisionist would have shown his inability to argue the appeal, then after appointing Amicus Curiae, appeal could easily be disposed of. Revisionist is employee of Crl. Revision No.1327 of 2004 8 CRPF and he is to loose the job, if without hearing the revisionist or his counsel, his appeal is disposed of. In the interest of justice, to afford full opportunity to the revisionist to defend his case, impugned judgment is set aside. Case is remanded back to the First Appellate Court i.e. the Successor Court of Mr. M.S.Chauhan, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar to hear and decide the appeal afresh within three months. Revisionist is directed to appear before the Successor Court of Mr. M.S.Chauhan, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 3.7.2009 at 10.00 A.M. and argue the appeal on the date fixed. If the revisionist or his counsel fail to appear on the date of hearing to argue the appeal as directed, then appeal is to be decided after hearing the State counsel after going through the file. Registry is directed to return the record of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court immediately. 25.05.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) Anoop JUDGE