C482/1011/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 1453 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.          or proceedings or
      Date                                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No            directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures

                                 C482 No.1011 of 2023
                                 Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. S.K. Shandilya, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Sachin Panwar and Ms. Lata Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

The applicant has given challenge to the impugned order dated 10.05.2016 which was passed by the court of learned District Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2016, "Ravi Shankar Nayak Vs. Raj Kumar" under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as back as in 2016.

On account of his consistent absence, the Court of Sessions Judge by order of 10.05.2016 dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.

It is this order which has now been put to challenge in the C482 Application and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is in the light of the fact that once an appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction, if even the appellant or his counsel is not present, the same cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution, rather the court should have proceeded to appoint an Amicus Curiae and then the matter could be proceeded to be decided on merits.

The said principal has been sought to be attracted on the basis of the judgment of the Co-rdinate Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 16.08.2022.

Issue notice to the respondent. Steps to serve the respondent would be taken by the learned counsel for the applicant within a period of one week from today.

List after service of notice on the respondent.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 23.05.2023 Sukhbant