KISHOR KAMLAKAR PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against conviction of the appellants for2 APPEAL 9 OF 97.sxw the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I., for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer R.I., for 3 months, inflicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, in Session Case No.111 of 1993.

(2.) When the appeal was called out for hearing, Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, advocate, holding for Mr N.V. Pradhan, advocate for the appellant, submitted that the appellant had taken away brief from their office, long back on l8.l2.2000 and that the appellant had so acknowledged in the register maintained in the advocate 's office. Therefore, learned counsel Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnana, for the accused, expressed inability to assist the Court, in deciding this appeal. She submitted that the Court may issue notice to the appellant or may appoint amicus curiae.

(3.) The question of issuing notice to to the appellant cannot arise because the appellants themselves have preferred this appeal against their conviction and when learned counsel, appearing on their behalf returned their brief, therefore, it was for them to ensure that the appeal is prosecuted on their behalf diligently. After taking the brief way back in 2000, till 2010, they neglected to engage another advocate. It is clear that they do not want to prosecute the appeal. As far as appointment of amicus curiae is concerned, amicus curiae could be appointed when3 APPEAL 9 OF 97.sxw inspite of due diligence, accused is not represented before the Court. Therefore, there is no question of adjourning the hearing any further for appointing amicus curiae and hearing it again. Therefore, with the help of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I have gone through the record and I am proceeding to decide this appeal by this judgment.