ISAAC OZEMA ONYEGBULA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN today when the matter was called out, the learned advocate for the appellant is absent. Earlier, when the matter was before us and the matter was called out on Z6th August 1999 as the advocate for the appellant was absent, we have dismissed the appeal for default. However, we have on the very day restored the appeal and ordered that the matter be placed in due course. Accordingly, the matter was notified before us.

(2.) ON going through the earlier Roznama, it is found that at the time of admission of appeal on 10th April 1995, the Court has expedited the hearing of the appeal and when the matter was placed before the Division Bench, the detailed order was passed by the Division Bench consisting of Justice Tipnis and Justice Parkar, on 10th June 1998 and it was observed that the matter was adjourned from time to time, however, none was present before the Court and the matter was removed from the board and was ordered to be placed for hearing in ordinary course. Even thereafter, for the several times the matter did call out before the Court, however, none appeared in the matter.

(3.) AS per the prosecution case, the brown sugar weighing 140 gms. was seized from the right side sandal of the accused and 150 gms, was seized from his left side sandal from the possession of the accused.