1 165.10-revn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 165 OF 2010 Shri Manikrao Anandrao Kadam. ... Applicant. V/s. Shri Ramesh Prakash More and another. ... Respondents. Anand S. Patil for the applicant. N.J.Patil for respondent No.1. Mrs.M.R.Tidke, APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 22nd June 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. By way of present application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 11th May 2009 vide which appeal filed by the present applicant came to be dismissed for default. The applicant- accused was convicted by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 6th May 2005. Being aggrieved thereby, applicant preferred appeal to the Session Court. Applicant and his advocate both were absent on various occasions, as such, appeal came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramnaresh Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1500. 3. The judgment relied upon by the Sessions Court is no more 2 165.10-revn good law in view of law laid down by the larger bench of the Apex Court in the case of Bani Singh v. State of U.P., 1996 Cri.L.J. 3491 wherein it is held that law does not envisages a dismissal of appeal for default or non- prosecution but only contemplates disposal on merits after perusal of the record. 4. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Rule is, thus, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. The applicant undertakes to remain present before the Sessions Court on the dates fixed and help the Court in speedy disposal of the matter. Parties to appear before the Sessions Court on 18th July 2011. Requirement of formal notice shall stand dispensed with. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)