Swami Deen vs State of U.P.

B.P. Singh, J.—Heard.

This application for revision is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. The applicant was convicted by Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai on 10th July, 1990 for committing offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and was sentenced to undergo six months'' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/. The applicant preferred an appeal against the judgment and order and his appeal Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1990 was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai on 6th December, 1990.

The main ground of the applicant is that he was not heard by the appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed in default. I have gone through the judgment of the appellate Court. It is quite clear that neither appellant nor his Counsel was present in the Court when his appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 6121990. It is not proper to dismiss a criminal appeal without hearing the Counsel for the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge should have proceeded to procure the attendance of the appellant or should have sent notice to the Counsel for the appellant and then he should have heard the appeal on merits. The judgment and order dated 6121990 cannot be sustained.

The revision application is allowed. The judgment and order dated 6121990 are hereby set aside. Appeal No. 46 of 1990 is remanded back to the Sessions Judge. Jalaun at Orai who will decide the appeal on merits after hearing the parties.

The applicant is in jail. He shall be released''on bail provided he furnishes two sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned for the period during which his appeal remains pending. Revision allowed.