Crl.L.P. 7/2010 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE BD AGARWAL Notice upon the respondent No.2 was sent by registered post but till date no reg istered notice returned back nor the AD card. Besides this, respondent No.2 is t he cousin of respondent No.3. Since the respondent No.3 has already appeared thr ough their counsel, it can also be presumed that the respondent No.2 has the kno wledge about the filing of this petition and despite that he is not appearing. E ven otherwise, the registered notices were sent long back and as such it is pres umed that the respondent No.2 has accepted the notice. Accordingly, the case wil l proceed ex-parte against the respondent No.2. Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G. Baishya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Mr BS Sinha, learned Addl. PP, Ass am for the respondent No.1. Upon hearing both the sides, leave is granted to file appeal against the impugne d judgment dated 20.02.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in Sessions Case No.9/07. However, it is made clear that granting of leave shall not be construed as autom atic admission of the appeal. In other words, the objection raised by the learne d counsel for the respondent No.3 about the maintainability of the appeal will b e considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. With the aforesaid observation, leave petition stands disposed of.