Procedural irregularities in the disposal of an appeal can lead to the setting aside of the judgment and remanding of the case for rehearing. The Court can permit non-appealing similarly situated accused to benefit from the setting aside of an illegal judgment/order.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

The petitioners namely Raju Patra and Arjun Patra have preferred this revision petition challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh Camp at Bonai in Criminal Appeal No.5/39 (Camp) of 2000 in setting aside the judgment and order of conviction under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and the sentence passed there under on dated 31.5.2000 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bonai in S.T. Case No.115/11 of 1999 and directing the Trial Court to dispose of the case afresh.

2. The two petitioners along with four others namely Mishra Patra, Pantu Patra, Rajesh Patra and Parameswar Sethi @ Pari faced trial in the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bonai in S.T. Case No.115/11 of 1999 for offences punishable under sections 395, 397 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.

The learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 31.5.2000 has been pleased to hold each of the accused persons guilty under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and accordingly, convicted them and sentenced the petitioners and two other co-accused persons namely Mishra Patra and Pantu Patra to undergo R.I. for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-each, in default, to undergo R.I. for sixty days each for the offence under section 395 of I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for six months each and to pay a fine of rupees twenty each for the offence under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, in default, to undergo R.I. for 20 days each. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and the default sentences were directed to run consecutively.

So far as the other two co-accused persons namely Parameswar Sethi @ Pari and Rajesh Patra are concerned, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of rupees one hundred each and in default, to undergo R.I. for sixty days for the offence under section 395 of I.P.C. and six months each and to pay a fine of rupees twenty each, in default, to undergo R.I. for twenty days each for the offence under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and the default sentences were directed to run consecutively.

3. The two petitioners namely Raju Patra and Arjuna Patra preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh Camp at Bonai on 26.6.2000 and accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.5/39 (Camp) of 2000 was registered. Another co-accused namely Pantu Patra preferred an appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.6 (Camp) of 2000.

The order sheet of the Appellate Court indicates that the appeal of the petitioners was posted to 27.6.2000 for office note and hearing on the point of admission and the LCR was called for from the Court below. On 27.6.2000 the advocate for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor were present. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor were heard and the matter was posted on 28.6.2000 for orders. On 28.6.2000, the appeal was admitted, the argument from both sides were heard along with Criminal Appeal No.6 (Camp) of 2000 preferred by co-accused Pantu Patra and on the very same day, a common judgment was pronounced in both the appeals and the learned Appellate Court has been pleased to direct for remanding the matter to the learned Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law and it was directed to the Trial Court to recall the Investigating Officer to record his evidence in detail and to provide opportunity to the defence for cross-examination. It was further directed that while recording the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., his/their attention should be drawn to those of the articles seized from their respective possession and the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence pa