SHAHABUDDIN ALLAUDDIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the appellate order dated 19-6-1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Criminal Appeal No. 152/1989 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code has been dismissed in default.

(2.) SECTION 385 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code') provides that if the appellate Court does not dismiss the appeal summarily, it shall cause notice regarding the hearing of the appeal to be given to the persons therein enumerated. Section 386 ibid provides that after perusing the record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor, if he appears and in case of an appeal under Section 377 or Section 378, the Accused, if he appears, the appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal.

(3.) IN the decision in Dr. Jainendra Kumar's case, AIR 1990 SC 1224 the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision rendered in appeal in the absence of the appellant's counsel. In the report reference has been made to Articles 21 and 39-A of the Constitution of India and Section 304 of the Code. In the decision in Ramnaresh Yadav's case, AIR 1987 SC 1500 it has been observed thus :