BORMOTY PANGGENG Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned P.P. and Addl. A.G. for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

(2.) The question sought to be answered by this order is whether the informant must be served with a notice before proceeding with the hearing of an appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the above mentioned question are that the appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. The informant of the case was impleaded as party respondent and notice was issued to him. However, despite all effort, the notice could not be served on the informant/respondent. Because after lodging the FIR, he had left the place of his residence in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, for Dadra and Nagar Haveli and did not return, and as such, whereabout of the informant could not be traced out.