Holding

The order dismissing the criminal revision is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh hearing.

Summary

Satin Chandrapegu was convicted under Section 409 IPC for alleged misappropriation of Rs.91,006 and sentenced to two years' imprisonment with a fine. His appeal to the Sessions Court was dismissed, and he filed a criminal revision under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the CrPC before the Guwahati High Court. At the hearing, no counsel appeared for him; the High Court dismissed the revision after hearing only the State’s counsel. It was later discovered that the counsel who appeared for the appellant was actually appointed as counsel for the State, and the appellant was not informed of this conflict nor given an opportunity to engage new representation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s dismissal was improper, set aside the order, and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing, directing the appellant to appoint new counsel.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal revision can be validly dismissed when the appellant is not represented because the counsel appearing for him is actually appointed by the State.
Whether the appellant’s failure to appoint new counsel, after learning of the conflict, can be imputed to him.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 397, s. 401, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 409

Subjects

criminal revisionrepresentationconflict of interestSection 409 IPCprocedural fairnesshigh court dismissalSupreme Court remand

Judgment

A SA TIN CHANDRA PEGU
~
..
v.
STATE OF ASSAM

NOVEMBER 15, 2006

B [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSlNGHPANTA,JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

s. 397 r/w ss.401 and 482-Criminal revision before High Court-
c 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.

The appellant was convicted by trial court under s.409 IPC. His appeal
D 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 YAT, 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 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.
c 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
D 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
E 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.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

RP. Appeal disposed of.

"·