RANGASWAMY Vs. EXCISE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was tried before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramankary along with another for the offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act. Both the accused were found guilty and convicted and sentenced. Petitioner, who was arraigned as accused No. 2, was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The other accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- with a default sentence.

(2.) The above order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner was challenged by him before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 280/98. The learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the appeal came up for hearing, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution after noticing that the appellant was absent. The above judgment is under challenge in this revision petition.

(3.) I am afraid the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in dismissing the appeal for default. It is trite that the appeal preferred by an accused cannot be summarily dismissed without considering its merit, even if the appellant/accused is absent. The Court could have appointed a State Brief to assist the court or otherwise the court ought to have perused the records and heard the learned Public Prosecutor. The procedure adopted by the court below is totally erroneous.