1. This revision is preferred against the order dated 16-12-1997 of the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna Division at Machilipatnam, rejecting the un-numbered Crl. Appeal preferred by the convicted-accused in S.T.C No. 52/95 on the file of J.F.C.M Bantumilli.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was tried for the offence punishable under Section 233 of A.P Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 and for violation of Rule 34(2) and Rule 41 of A.P Gram Panchayat Rules.
3. The petitioner-accused, after full trial was found guilty of the said offences and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 14,600/- and in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months by the judgment, dated 17-11-1997. As against the fine imposed on him the accused paid Rs. 1,000/- towards the part of the fine. The petitioner-accused without paying the balance of the fine amount, preferred the appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed on him in S.T.C No. 52/95. The learned Sessions Judge, instead of admitting the said appeal, rejected it by observing “the accused who is sentenced to pay a tine shall first pay the fine and prefer appeal then only”. Thus, the only reason given by the learned Sessions Judge for rejecting the un-numbered appeal is that the appellant-accused who has been sentenced to pay the fine, failed to deposit the fine before preferring the appeal. Challenging the said order, the accused has come up with this revision.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the convicted-accused has got a statutory right of appeal under Section 374 Cr. P.C and the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in rejecting the appeal preferred by the accused, on the ground that the fine imposed is not deposited before preferring the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused further contends that the payment of fine in Court is not a condition precedent for preferring the statutory appeal. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, also submits that the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained as the convicted-accused has got a statutory right to prefer an appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed on him.
5. Section 374 Cr. P.C deals with appeals from convictions. Sub-Section (1) relates to appeals to the Supreme Court against the conviction on a trial held by the High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction. Sub-Section (2) deals with appeal to the High Court against conviction on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or by an Addl. Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment is for more than 7 years has been passed. Sub-Section (3) relates to the appeals to the Court of Session against conviction on a trial held by the Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the First Class or of the Second Class or sentenced under Section 325 or against an order made or sentence passed under Section 360 by any Magistrate. Section 375 Cr. P.C deals with cases where there shall be no appeal against a conviction. Section 376 Cr. P.C deals with the cases where no appeal lies against conviction in petty cases. In the instant case, Sections 375 and 376 Cr. P.C are not applicable. Section 374(3) Cr. P.C attracts to the facts in this case. Admittedly, the petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under Section 233 of A.P Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 read with Rules 34(2) and 41 of the Gram Panchayat Rules and he was found guilty of the said offences and he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 14,600/- with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He was convicted by a Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bantumilli. Therefore, the petitioner-accused has got a statutory right of appeal under Section 374(3) Cr. P.C against the conviction and sentence imposed on him. It is nowhere stated in Section 374 Cr. P.C that the payment of fine imposed on the accused is a condition precedent for preferring the appeal. Even if the imposed fine is not paid by the accused and yet preferred the appeal, it is not open to the appellate authority to reject the appeal as the accused has got a statutory right of appeal, against the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused-appellant. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, has committed error in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner-accused on the ground that the fine imposed on him has not been deposited. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. In the result, the revision case is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the un-numbered Crl. Appeal preferred by the petitioner-accused against the conviction and sentence imposed in S.T.C No. 52/95 is set aside.
7. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to register the appeal and dispose of the same as per law.
Comments