STATE OF M P Vs. ATTUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Sessions Trial No. 105 of 1979, Third Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal, by his judgment dated 6.3.1980 acquitted all the five accused of the charges of murder etc. Against the said acquittal State filed this appeal on 23.6.1980 which was admitted on 6.8.1980. Admittedly this appeal was filed within limitation. In the cause title of the memo of appeal names of only four accused have been mentioned, as respondents. One of these four namely Gopichand is reported to have expired during the pendency of this appeal. The name of accused Manohar alias Mannu was not mentioned in the array of respondents.

(2.) After when (sic) this appeal was listed for final hearing applications were filed on 23.2.1983 on behalf of the State for permission to add the name Manohar alias Mannu in the memo of appeal as a respondent and for condonation of delay. A memo of appeal mentioning Manohar alias Mannu as the respondent was also filed. Notices of these applications were issued to Manohar who filed replies opposing the prayers made on behalf of the State.

(3.) In substance, what has been stated in the applications filed on behalf of the State, is that though the instructions from the Law Department were to file the appeal against all the five accused who had been acquitted, but by mistake the name of Manohar alias Mannu stood omitted while typing the memo of appeal and this mistake could be detected only when the case came up for final hearing. In the replies there was no specific denial about instructions from the Law Department that the appeal was to be filed against all the five accused. The objections were that the appeal had been argued for admission and subsequently the case had been listed for other miscellaneous matters like exemption to respondents from appearance, death of respondent Gopichand and early hearing of the appeal. The suggestion therefore is that the omission of Manohars name should have been detected on such intermediary dates. There being bona fide mistake in the omission of Manohar's name from the array of respondents has been disputed.