Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 213 (ORI)

Ramesh Behera v. State of Orissa

2019-03-14

S.K.SAHOO

body2019
JUDGMENT : S.K.SAHOO, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 05.02.2013 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Bhadrak in Sessions Trial No. 82/200 of 2012 in convicting the appellants Nos.1 and 2 under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and appellants Nos.3 and 4 under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and instead of sentencing them to any punishment, they were directed to be released under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereafter 'P.O. Act') on furnishing PR. Bond of Rs. 1000/-(rupees one thousand) each with one surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. It was further directed that they are to appear before the Trial Court for undergoing the sentence when called upon to do so during the period of two years and in the meantime, they were to keep peace and be of good behavior and in the event of execution of such bonds, they shall remain under active supervision of the District Probation Officer, Balasore under the P.O. Act. 2. The registry has pointed that this appeal is not maintainable relying on the proviso (i) to section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stipulates that no appeal shall lie in petty cases and as per the said provision, notwithstanding anything contained in section 374 Cr.P.C., 1973 there shall be no appeal by a convicted person in the cases which are mentioned under clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), but as per the proviso to that section an appeal can be brought against any such sentence if any other punishment is combined with it, but in view of sub-clause (i) of the proviso, the sentence shall not be appealable merely on the ground that the person convicted is ordered to furnish security to keep the peace. 3. Section 11 of the P.O. Act deals with the Courts competent to make order under the Act, appeal and revision and powers of the Courts in appeal and revision. 3. Section 11 of the P.O. Act deals with the Courts competent to make order under the Act, appeal and revision and powers of the Courts in appeal and revision. In Sub-section (2) of Section 11, it is mentioned that notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C., where an order under Section 3 or 4 of the P.O. Act is made by any Court trying the offender (other than a High Court), an appeal shall lie to the Court to which the appeals ordinarily lie from the sentences of the former Court. In view of the non-obstante clause provided in the Special Act, it will have an overriding effect on the corresponding provision made in the Cr.P.C. 4. There is no dispute that as per section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., 1973 an appeal against the order of conviction on a trial held by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, is maintainable in this Court and since the appellants have been released under Section 4 of the P.O. Act by the Trial Court, in view of Sub-section (2) to section 11 of the said Act, this appeal is maintainable. Therefore, the objection pointed out by the registry is overruled. 5. Heard. 6. Admit. 7. Call for the L.C.R.S Appeal maintainable.