TRIVENI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 31.8.99 passed by Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Criminal Appeal No.46/96 dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant for want of prosecution.

(2.) Applicant was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi in Criminal Case No. 918/96. In Criminal Appeal preferred by the applicant against the aforesaid order of his conviction and sentence passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sidhi, when the appeal was fixed for final hearing on 31.8.99, the applicant/appellant or his counsel did not appear for the whole day despite repeated calls. Learned Sessions Judge, therefore, cancelled the bail of the applicant granted to him in Criminal Appeal filed by him and also dismissed the appeal in absence of the applicant, also directed the trial court to issue non-bailable warrant against the applicant for execution of the sentence passed on him, by the impugned order dated 31.8.99, which has been assailed in this revision.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that Sessions Court gravely erred in dismissing the appeal in absence of the applicant, as Criminal Appeal could not be dismissed for non-section; despite absence of the appellant or his lawyer it should have been dissed of on merits. Reliance was also aced on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Shyam Deo Pandey and Others v. The State of Bihar reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court Page 1606.