Emperor vs Trimbak Balvant Vaidya

Fawcett, J.—In this case the applicant filed an appeal to the Sessions Judge against his conviction and sentence u/s 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge admitted the appeal and issued notice, but subsequently dismissed the appeal owing to the absence of the appellant and his pleader. This, however, is a procedure which is not authorised by any provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. u/s 423, Criminal Procedure Code, the Court of Appeal has to peruse the record and to form an opinion as to whether there is or is not sufficient ground for interference, This has been already ruled by this Court in Queen-Empress v. Deoshanker (1892) Cr. C. 593 Cr. R. No. 11 of 1892. There are also similar rulings of the Allahabad High Court in Queen-Empress v. Pohpi ILR (1891) All. 171 and of the Punjab Chief Court in Koura v. Queen-Empress (1895) P.R. No. 21 of 1895 (Cr.). We, therefore, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal, and direct that the appeal be readmitted on the file and disposed of, after notice to the appellant, according to law.