VASUDEV CHELAJI MARVADI Vs. JYOTINDRA PURSOTTAMDAS PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.Sunil Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.Bukhari has tendered one letter dated 15th January, 2007 sent to the appellant-accused, Vasudev Chelaji Marvadi by registered Post A.D., referred to by the Court in earlier order dated 22nd January, 2007. Considering the contents of the letter tendered today alongwith the window receipt dated 16th January, 2007, vis-a-vis the earlier orders passed by this Court on 7th December, 2006, 9th January, 2007 and 15th January, 2007, the Court is of the view that the appellant ought to have arranged for his appearance or at least could have appeared in person today as intimated vide above said letter of 15th January, 2007. It is clear from the conduct of the appellant-accused that neither he is interested in instructing the lawyer nor in making arrangement for his appearance vice Mr.Bukhari.

(2.) It is also submitted by learned A.P.P., Ms.Pandit that as the matter is very old, the Court should not adjourn the matter only on account of non-cooperation on the part of the appellant-accused. The original record and proceedings are before the Court. In the same way, the entire paper-book is also with the Court and she is also ready to assist the Court in dealing with the matter on merit. This being the Criminal Appeal cannot be disposed of by dismissing it the same for want of prosecution. The Court has good reason for accepting this submission, therefore the Court is inclined to decide the matter on merits. Ultimately, the illegality and validity of the order of conviction has been challenged by the appellant-accused, need to be examined.

(3.) The appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmedabad City dealing with the cases under authority to deal with the cases instituted for the offences punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. The learned Special Judge while disposing of the Special Case No.18 of 1990 found that the prosecution is successful in proving the charges levelled against the appellant-accused and therefore held that the accused is liable to be punished under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.