Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1168 (MP)

Raman Bai v. State of M. P.

2014-09-17

SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA, U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1.This case is listed today for appropriate order on the question of entertainability of this appeal. 2. As per office note before filing the present Cr. A. No. 2332/14, on 23.8.2014 at the instance of the appellant against the impugned judgment a Cr. A. No. 2253/14 was already filed on 19.8.2014 and in such premises this subsequent appeal is not entertainable. On perusing the record of Cr. A. No. 2253/14, we have found that after entertaining the same has been admitted on 11.9.2014 for final hearing in presence of the counsel of the appellant Shri P.N. Yadav and P.L. Shri Santosh Yadav, for the respondent. 3. On asking the appellant's counsel that in view of admission of aforesaid earlier appeal filed by the appellant how this subsequent appeal could be entertained and considered for admission, on which the appellant's counsel submits that he appellant has given him the Vakalatnama to file this appeal before filing the aforesaid earlier appeal and on the basis of his Vakalatnama he has filed the present appeal. In continuation he said that he was the counsel of the appellant before trial court also and copy of the impugned judgment supplied by the trial Court to the accused was given to him to file the appeal, the same is annexed with this appeal, accordingly he is duly engaged counsel of the appellant. He further said that unless his Vakalatnama is terminated by the appellant the Court did not have any authority to pass any order to dismiss subsequent appeal in the light of admission of earlier appeal. 4. He further said that by calling the appellant before the Court such fact may be verified whether he has authorize him to file the appeal or not.2 Keeping in view aforesaid arguments, we have carefully gone through the earlier Cr. A. No. 2253/14. True it is that such appeal was filed along with photo copy of the impugned judgment so also by annexing the memo of appearance by the concerning lawyer only and not with the Vakalatnama of the appellant but we have found one distinguishable feature in the both the appeals that subsequent appeal has been filed by the appearing counsel of the appellant only on behalf of Smt. Raman Bai, an con-convicted accused while the earlier appeal was filed on behalf of both the convicted accused. 5. 5. We are of the considered view that after entertaining the earlier appeal of both the appellants by this Court and passing the order on admission, this subsequent appeal could not be entertained again for any purpose and in this regard any verification from the appellant, as prayed by the counsel is also not required. 6. In view of the provision of Section 374 of Cr. P. C. only one appeal against conviction and sentence is permissible and earlier appeal has already been entertained and admitted for final hearing, thefore, this being subsequent appeal is hereby dismissed with liberty to the present appellant Smt. Raman Bai to prosecute aforesaid earlier pending Cr. A. No. 2253/14 through counsel of her choice. The appearing counsel of the appellant shall also be at liberty to prosecute such earlier appeal on behalf of the present appellant but subject to filing his fresh Vakalatnama in such earlier appeal. Office is directed to keep the record of this appeal always with the Cr. A. No. 2253/14, till disposal of such appeal.