1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.479/2009 Vishal K.Kedia Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr.P.R.Dave for the applicant Ms.S.V.Gajare APP for State CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C. . This Revision Application is preferred challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay on 18/5/2009 rejecting the application of the original complainant requesting to dismiss the appeal for default. This application was made by the applicant as the appellant i.e.the original accused who was convicted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , 40th Court,Girgaon for the offences punishable under sections 465,468,471, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and has challenged the said order in the Sessions Court in the said appeal. The appeal was admitted on 21/1/2002 and the appellant was given bail. But thereafter though the matter had come for hearing the appellant remained absent. It is 2 mentioned in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge that Non Bailable Warrant was issued to seek presence of the appellant and so also proclamation order was also issued against the appellant. However, he was not found and therefore the application for dismissal was made. 2] The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has pointed out that at the time of hearing of this application praying dismissal reliance was placed on the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 29/3/2007 in Criminal Appeal No.926/88 in which the ratio in the case of Bani Singh Vs.State of U.P.,(1196) 4 SCC 720 was discussed. However the learned Sessions Judge has not interpreted the ruling correctly and has committed error of law while passing this order. 3] The appellant has jumped the order of bail and did not bother to appear before the Sessions Court to conduct the appeal against the conviction which was pending since January, 2002 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge.This was evident to hold that the appellant was not interested in going with the appeal and took advantage of the order of bail. The applicant and his advocate both though were given 3 sufficient opportunity to put up the case did not avail it off intentionally. The non prosecution is not merely due to continuous negligence but it is continuous deliberate abuse of process of law which itself is a reasonable ground to dismiss the appeal. The ratio of the Division Bench of this Court (supra) was binding on the learned Sessions Judge. 4] In view of the ruling of the Division Bench (supra) the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is quashed and set aside and the order of the Trial Court dated 11/12/2001 is hereby confirmed. The Trial Court to take necessary action in accordance with law. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)