JUDGMENT 1. - The case comes up on the application moved by Mr. H S. Sandhu that the appeal was beard in his absence and as such, the judgment of this court, under which the State appeal was allowed and the accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, be recalled and the appeal be re heard on merits. 2. Some facts which are relevant for the disposal of this application are these ; The case was listed for hearing on 12-10-1981. Mr. Onkar Singh Tak advocate had presented the appeal and his Vakalatnama was also on record. His name also appeared in the cause-list dated 12-10-1981 but when the case reached, he did not appear. After waiting for some time, the appeal was heard and the case was adjourned for dictation of judgment. The judgment was dictated on 13-10-1981 and the State appeal was allowed as aforesaid It appears that in the Registry, Mr. H.S Sandhu had also filed his power for the accused sometime in the month of July, 1981 and as such, his power was on record. But the office did not show his name in the cause list Mr. Sandhu, therefore, did not appear and could not represent the accused. 3. The question is as to whether the order of this court should be recalled or not. It is a general practice in this court that it is not necessary that when the accused is represented by more than one advocate and the name of one of the advocates appears in the cause list, the name of the other advocate should also be shown on the cause list. The accused having appointed not one but two advocate, was not expected to be present in court on the date of hearing as is the practice. He, therefore, was not present. Mr. Tak did not appear and Mr. Sandhu could not appear because his name was not shown in the cause list. Even in a civil case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in Rafiq v. Munshilal ( AIR 1981 SC 1400 ) that the court cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Their Lordships allowed the appeal and directed the High Court to rehear it on merits. Even in a civil case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in Rafiq v. Munshilal ( AIR 1981 SC 1400 ) that the court cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Their Lordships allowed the appeal and directed the High Court to rehear it on merits. In criminal cases, the liberty of citizen is involved and the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to above is, though given in a civil case, will apply with more force to criminal case. The matter will be different if the name of the advocate who appears and argues a case and the other advocate who is also engaged, his name does not appear and he does not put in appearance. In that case, it can not be said that the case of the accused has gone unrepresented and therefore, there has been a failure of justice The practice of an advocate whose name appears in the cause list in a criminal case not appearing cannot be appreciated and should rather be continued, unless, of course, because of reasons beyond the control of the advocate. he is unable to put in appearance. In a criminal case, unless ai advocate engaged by the accused has been formally disengaged or otherwise instructions are withdrawn from him, he has to appear in the case. Be that as it may, in the circumstances of the case as Mr. Tak did not appear and as already stated above, Mr. Sandhu, as his name did not appear in the cause list, could not appear and, therefore, the care of the accused was heard only in the presence of the public prosecutor and the State appeal was allowed. In these circumstances, it appears to me that it is a fit case in which, in the interest of justice, the judgment of this Court dated 13-10-1981 should be recalled and the appeal should be listed for re-hearing on merits. 4. In the result, I recall my judgment dated 13-10-1981 and direct that the appeal be listed for hearing before a single Bench.Application Allowed. *******