RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By way of this revision, order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Almora in Criminal Appeal No. 29/2011 has been assailed. By the impugned order, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal of the revisionist/appellant for want of prosecution as when the case was taken up for hearing learned Counsel who was representing the revisionist/appellant before the court below pleaded no instructions in the matter despite having written several letters to him. Learned Counsel for the revisionist/appellant argued that the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have dismissed the appeal in nonprosecution.

(3.) This Court is in agreement with the argument of learned Counsel. In the above eventuality, the right course for the learned Sessions Judge would have been either to ensure the attendance of the revisionist/appellant even by using coercive measures or to appoint an amicus curiae to plead the case on behalf of the revisionist/appellant, and only thereafter the court below would have decided the appeal considering the merits thereof.