mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.328 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.403 OF 2009 Vinayak Balkrishna Lambe Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents P.J.Pawar for applicant. Miss S.V.Gajre, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th June 2009 PC :- 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service for the first respondent. Second respondent is not a necessary party. 2. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. The appeal was admitted and bail was granted. On 21st February 2004 the advocate appointed by the applicant was absent. The learned Judge observed that paper book charges have not been deposited by the applicant. Only on that ground the appeal was dismissed. The applicant has stated that at the end of November 2008 he was arrested for undergoing the sentence. At that time he came to know about the impugned order. The application for certified copy was made and certified copy was received on 5th March 2009. Thereafter this revision application has been filed. Considering the fact that the substantive appeal against the conviction filed by the applicant was dismissed for non prosecution on account of absence of the advocate for the applicant and failure to pay paper book charges, a case for condonation of delay is made out. Delay is condoned. Application is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.403 OF 2009 Vinayak Balkrishna Lambe Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents P.J.Pawar for applicant. Miss S.V.Gajre, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th June 2009 PC :- 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service for first respondent. Service of notice to the second respondent-absconding accused is dispensed with. Taken-up for hearing forthwith. 2. The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. The substantive appeal preferred by the applicant against the order of conviction was admitted and the applicant was enlarged on bail. On 21st February 2004 when the appeal came up before the Sessions Court the advocate for the applicant was absent. The Court noticed that paper book charges were not paid. Only on that ground the appeal was dismissed. 3. As the advocate for the applicant was absent the Court could not have dismissed the appeal against order of conviction for non prosecution. Only on this ground the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The advocate for the applicant states that the paper book charges will be paid within eight weeks from today. 4. Hence, I pass following order :- (a) The impugned order dated 21st February 2004 is quashed and set aside and Criminal Appeal No.100 of 2003 is restored to the file of the Sessions Court; (b) Till disposal of the appeal, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount; (c) Hearing of the appeal is expedited and the appeal shall be disposed of by the end of the year; (d) Criminal Application No.329/2009 and 330/2009 do not survive and the same are disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)