Purushotam vs State of M.P.

Leave granted.

The Appellant herein has challenged the order dated April 13, 2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya pradesh in the criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2004 convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian penal Code.

From the judgment of the High court it is clear that the Appellant-accused had engaged an Advocate. The matter appeared on board of the High court on January 28, 2006, but the Advocate for the Appellant -accused was not present. It was, therefore, adjourned to March 10, 2008. on march 10, 2008, again the matter appeared on board but the advocate was not present. It was, therefore, adjourned to April 10, 2008. On April 10, 2008 also, advocate was not present and the High Court decided the matter on merits keeping in view the decision of this Court in the case of Bani Singh and ohters Vs. State of U.P., .

We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

Though the advocate appearing for the Appellant-accused was given sufficient opportunity by the High Court and he failed to appear, in our opinion, the Appellant-accused should not suffer on that account and it would be appropriate if the High court extends an opportunity to the accused and decide the case after hearing both the sides.

For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and remit the matter so as to enable the High court to decide it on its own merits.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the above extent.