SURENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has reached for hearing today but none appears for the appellant.

(2.) This court finds itself pushed to the wall for the reason 99% of the decisions being rendered by this Court show that a considerable time is spent to get hold of learned counsel for the appellants, who for some unexplainable reason refuse to appear in the matters.

(3.) Order sheet in each and every case shows that the accused is first summoned. His statement that he would ensure that his lawyer would appear on the next date is recorded. Finding no lawyer on the next date, notices are issued to the lawyers concerned. Inspite of service effected the lawyer does not appear. The Court is then compelled to appoint an Amicus Curie and then proceed to hear the appeal. As a result of non- cooperation afore-noted, not only judicial time is wasted but the disposal of the appeals is seriously affected. With nearly 2000 criminal appeals to be heard and decided by the Division Bench, it is just not possible to continue procedural compliances as afore-note to secure the presence of the counsel. It may be noted that the cause list is circulated to the members of the Bar well in advance.