Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SATIN CHANDRA PEGU versus STATE OF ASSAM

Decided
15 November 2006
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 1172 · 2006 INSC 849
Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted.

p. 1173, margin B

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.

p. 1173, margin B

The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

p. 1173, margin C

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. 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 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.

p. 1173, margin C

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 neg1igence on his part.

p. 1173, margin F

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.

p. 1174, margin A

It has not been disputed that the learned counsel who was appearing for 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.

p. 1174, margin A

In view of this peculiar circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh hearing. To avoid unnecessary delay, we direct that the matter shall be listed before an appropriate Bench on I 1.12.2006 and learned Chief Justice of the High Court shall pass necessary orders in that regard. It is undertaken by learned counsel for the appellant that another counsel shall be engaged to appear for the appellant before the High Court before the aforesaid date. Since the matter was pending before the High Court for nearly seven years, we request the High Court to explore the possibility of disposal of the Criminal Revision as early as practicable. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that an application for bait shall be filed before th.e High Court. Needless to say that if such application is filed, the same shall be dealt with in acco.rdance with law.

p. 1174, margin C

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. RP. Appeal disposed of.

p. 1174, margin E