Bombay High Court
Rajendra Devappa Butale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 January, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2024:BHC-AS:1523
PMB 4.revn.162-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.162 OF 2019
RAJENDRA DEVAPPA BUTALE ..APPLICANT
VS.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT
------------
Adv. Anand S. Patil for the applicant.
Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the State.
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : JANUARY 12, 2024
ORAL ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned
APP for the State.
2. My attention is invited to the impugned order passed
in Criminal Appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kolhapur dated 14.08.2018. In paragraph 10 of the
judgment it is mentioned that the appellant is absent since
long. There is an observation that the Criminal Appeal
cannot be disposed of as dismissed in default. However, in
paragraph 12 it is observed that as nobody appeared for the
appellant/accused and hence considering his defence taken,
which is inferred from the suggestions given in the cross-
examination and also the argument advanced before the
PMB 4.revn.162-19.doc
Learned Trial Court and which is apparent from the record
itself, the matter is proceeded with. It is thus obvious that
there was no representation on behalf of the appellant when
the appeal was finally heard. My attention is invited by
learned counsel for the applicant to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Pratap
Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1. A reference to
paragraph 11 thereof is pertinent which reads thus :-
"11. The first issue is whether any prejudice was caused
to the appellant, as his appeal was heard in the absence of
his advocate. The cause title of the judgment clearly
mentions that the advocate representing the appellant was
absent. The order sheet of the appeal preferred by the
appellant and two others (Annexure P-3) records that on
26th October 2004, when the appeal preferred by the
appellant and two others was called out, the appellant's
advocate was present. The appeal was heard on 23rd
November 2004. The order sheet of that date records that
the advocate for the appellant was absent. It also notes
that the arguments were heard, and judgment was
reserved. The impugned judgment does not refer to any
submission canvassed on behalf of the appellant. The High
Court has, thus, committed illegality by deciding the
appeal against the conviction preferred by the appellant
without hearing the appellant or his advocate. After finding
that the advocate appointed by the appellant was absent,
the High Court ought to have appointed a lawyer to
espouse his cause."
3. In the present case, as there was no appearance on
behalf of the appellant, the Court proceeded with the
1 Criminal Appeal No.1209 of 2011 dated 09.10.2023
PMB 4.revn.162-19.doc
hearing of the Appeal without appointing the lawyer to
espouse the appellant's cause. The impugned order needs
to be quashed and set aside and the matter remitted to the
Appellate Court for deciding the Appeal afresh in the light of
the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Learned APP made an attempt to invite my attention
to the finding of the Appellate Court to submit that the
Appellate Court has taken precaution in considering the
defence and also considering the arguments advanced
before the trial Court. However, such submissions does not
meet requirement laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Chandra Pratap Singh (supra).
5. The Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
6. The impugned judgment and conviction dated
14.08.2018 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in
Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2011 is set aside. The matter is
remitted to the Appellate Court for deciding the Appeal
afresh in accordance with law.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/01/2024 18:43:00
