PARAS NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Initially the appeal was filed by Sri S.K. Dubey on behalf of the appellant Paras Nath Singh. On 6.10.93 when the appeal was listed, Sri Dubey made a statement that the client has taken away the file from him and hence was unable to argue the appeal. As no other counsel was engaged by the appellant therefore office was directed to send notice to the appellant to engage another counsel. The C.J.M. Jaunpur by letter No. 158/21/10/93 intimated this court that notice on behalf of the appellant has been served on his brother Dinesh Singh as he had gone to Lucknow in connection with some election. Then again fresh notice was sent to the appellant in compliance with the order dated 7.4.94. This time too the C.J.M. has reported by the letter dated 19.4.94 that notice has been serve(' on the brother of the appellant, namely Dinesh Singh, who rides with Paras Nath appellant and that Paras Nath was not available in the village.

(2.) It appears that appellant is purposely and deliberately avoiding to put in appearance or engage another counsel as he wants to delay the disposal of appeal. The stay order dated 3.7.90 has already been vacated by order dated 6.10.94. The learned counsel for the complainant stated that recovery proceedings against the appellant are lying held up because the Misc. file of the court below has been summoned by this court in the above appeal which has not yet been sent to the court below.

(3.) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.4.90 for filing surety bond and imposing a fine of Rs. 5000.00. As mentioned above the appellant is purposely delaying disposal of the appeal as inspite of service of notice on his real brother who is jointly living with the appellant neither he has personally appeared nor has engaged another counsel and in these circumstances the court was left with no option but to decide the appeal on merit after perusing the record.