Trimbak Balvant Vaidya vs Emperor

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 Cr. P.C. u/s 423, Cr. P.C. 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 Rat. Un.Cr. C. 593 : Cr. R. No. 11 of 1892. There are also similar rulings of the Allahabad High Court in Queen-Empress v. Pohpi 13 A. 171 : A.W.N. (1891) 48 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S ) 107 and of the Punjab Chief Court in Koura v. Empress 21 P.R. 1895 Cr. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal, and direct that the appeal be re-admitted on the file and disposed of, after notice to the appellant, according to law.