P.K. Musahary, J.

1. Heard Mr. Muk Pertin, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Lowang, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. This application is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Daporijo in G.R. Case No. 52/2007 corresponding to Daporijo P.S. Case No. 36/2007 under Sections 279/337, IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.5.2007 an FIR was lodged by one Shri Tadak Makcha with Daporijo Police Station stating that one Shri Takek Niji hit Shri Tabi Makcha, HGB of village Jigi at Daporijo on 29.5.2007 at 7.15 p.m. by a Motor Cycle bearing registration No AR-04-1108. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the Police registered a case being Daporijo P.S. Case No. 36/2007 under Sections 279/337, IPC. After completion of investigation, the I.O. laid charge sheet on 26.6.2007.

4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses inducting the medical officer and on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial court held that the petitioner-accused is liable to be convicted under Sections 279/337, IPC. The learned trial court directed the petitioner-accused Takek Niji to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to Shri Tabi Makcha, victim as a compensation within a period of 30 days from the date of judgment instead of sentencing the petitioner-accused to suffer imprisonment and fine.

5. Mr. M. Pertin, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused was not furnished with the documents, particularly, the charge sheet and the charge was not framed in accordance with the procedures prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code inasmuch as, the charges were not explained to the accused-petitioner and no opportunity was given to him to deny the same. Moreover, according to Mr. Pertin, the accused was not given any opportunity to engage any counsel to depend his case, not to speak of providing pro-legal assistance to him. The accused was not asked by the learned trial court as to whether he wanted to engage any counsel or he needed free legal assistance for his defence. As the accused was not given any chance to engage defence counsel or provided with free legal assistance, the prosecution witnesses could not be cross-examined. As regard the right to free legal services to be provided to petitioner-accused, Mr. Pertin, has cited the cases of Khatri and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 928 and Suk Das and Anr. v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh AIR 1986 SC 991.

6. The farther submission of Mr. Pertin is that there is a specific provision for claiming compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ('MACT') under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and such compensation can be awarded by the jurisdictional MACT only. The learned trial court has exceeded his jurisdiction in awarding compensation to the victim instead of sentencing the petitioner. In fact, according to Mr. Pertin, the victim has already filed claim petition, which is pending before the MACT at Daporijo. In view of the above, according to Mr. Pertin, the impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2008 is liable to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

7. I have gone through the case record obtained from the learned trial court and produced before this Court. It is found that the charge sheet was submitted on 26.6.2007 by the I.O. and the same was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo to the District Magistrate, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo vide letter No. DRJ/CR-52/07/1510 dated 28th June, 2007. Summons was issued to the petitioner-accused on 14.12.2007 asking him to appear and answer to the charge on 18.2.2008 at 10.00 hrs. in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Daporijo. The petitioner-accused appeared accordingly on 18.2.2008 and so another summons was issued on 22.2.2008 asking him to appear on 6.5.2008 before the