Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 581 (MAD)

K. v. Rajendran @ V. Raja VS P. A. Parameeswaran

2011-02-03

K.B.K.VASUKI

body2011
Judgment :- 1. The accused is the revision petitioner herein. The criminal revision is filed against the judgement of conviction made in C.A.No.90 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem confirming the judgement of conviction made in C.C.No.32 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem. 2. The sole ground on which this court is now inclined to set aside the judgement of conviction made in C.A.No.90 of 2007 is by reason of manner of disposal of the appeal by the appellate court on merits in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused. 3. It is not in dispute that the learned counsel for the appellant/accused did not represent the case on the date, when the matter was posted for hearing. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant was duly present and the appellate court proceeded to hear the matter on merits in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and disposed of the appeal on merits by confirming the finding of the guilty and the judgement of conviction by the trial court. Such practice is not approved by the Apex Court in the judgement reported in 2005 (11) SCC 413 in Bapu Limbaji Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, wherein, the Apex Court has under identical circumstances observed that the High court should have appointed another Advocate as amicus curiae before proceeding to dispose of the appeal. Applying the same ratio, the judgement of conviction passed by the appellate court is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would then fervently appeal to this court to remand the matter for fresh disposal and he would further submit that the petitioner will duly represent through his counsel before the lower court and extend full cooperation to the Appellate Court for the disposal of appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible. This Court is, hence on the strength of the assurance given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, inclined to set aside the judgement of conviction and remand the appeal to the Appellate Court. 5. This Court is, hence on the strength of the assurance given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, inclined to set aside the judgement of conviction and remand the appeal to the Appellate Court. 5. In the result, the Criminal revision is allowed by setting aside the judgement of conviction dated 20.11.2007 made in C.A.NO.90/2007 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Salem and C.A.No.90 of 2007 is remanded to the Appellate Court for fresh disposal on merits as expeditiously as possible not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioner/accused is directed to appear either in person or through his counsel as advised and to co-operate for disposal of the appeal on merits. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.