IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.06.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA CRL. R.C.NO.92 OF 2006 and Crl.M.P.No.522 of 2006 Rajeswari .. Petitioner/Appellant vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CCIW,Chennai .. Respondent/Respondent Revision under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 26.10.2005 made in Crl.Appeal No.67 of 2003 on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai (Incharge of IV Additional Sessions Court). for petitioner : Mr.V.Padmanabhan Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Peer Mohammed for respondent : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R The relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:- The revision petitioner Rajeswari filed the appeal in C.A.No.67 of 2003 in the 4th Additional Sessions Judge Court as against the Judgement of the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in C.C.No.1211 of 1985. Whileso, the appellate Judge passed the impugned order as under:- "The Criminal Appeal is preferred against the judgment passed by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in C.C.No.1211/1985 dated 13.02.2003. NBW not issued. Appellant absent. Appeal against one of the Accused. Appeal dismissed as non prosecution. The order of Trial Court is confirmed. The XI Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to issue NBW against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present Appellant/Accused and to proceed further as per order of the court". 2. Challenging and impugning the said order passed by the learned appellate Judge, this revision is focussed that an appeal could not be dismissed for non prosecution simplicitor despite the appellant and his advocate are absent. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor at the hearing in all fairness would submit that the order of the learned Appellate Judge is liable to be set aside for the reason that he ought not to have simply dismissed the appeal for default. 4. I would like to agree with the view expressed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is ex-facie and prima-facie clear that even in the absence of the accused appellant or his counsel, the appellate Judge who was seized of the appeal was expected to dispose of the matter on merits even by appointing an advocate to represent the case of the appellant. As such the order of the appellate Judge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate Court with a direction to take it on file and give notice to both sides fixing a date for hearing and thereupon the matter shall be disposed of on merits on the line set out supra. The entire process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar rg To 1. The IV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai. (VI Additional Sessions Judge Incharge of IV Additional Sessions Court). 2. -do- Through The Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai - 1. 3. XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CCIW,Chennai 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Crl.R.C.No.92 of 2006 RSM(CO) RVL 07.07.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/