A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) MY learned brother Nandi, J. has held in his judgment to be delivered now that there is nothing on record to justify our intervention in revision in respect of the order of conviction passed against and the sentence imposed upon the accused-petitioner under Section 395/397 of the Penal Code condemning him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. I agree with him and also share his sense of shock and dismay at the fact that by the time we could find time in 1989 to hear this Revisional application filed in this Court in 1982, the petitioner had to fully serve out the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment.

( 2 ) BUT suppose we ruled otherwise and held that the revision was to be allowed and the orders of conviction and the resultant sentence were to be quashed? Who was then to compensate the accused for all the agony and strain suffered by him under an unlawful order of conviction and sentence?

( 3 ) IT is true that under our Code of Procedure, an order of conviction and sentence are not automatically suspended during any appeal or revision against such order. It is also equally true that under our Code, setting aside of conviction and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document