IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Case No. 837 of 2011 Man Singh S/o Simru, R/o Bairagiwala, Harbartpur, Saharspur District Dehradun. ….…..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. ……Respondents Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A G.A., present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.05. 2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ 3rd Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2009, Man Singh Vs. State. 3) Brief facts of the case are that confiscation of a vehicle is said to have taken place under Section 72 of U.P. Excise Act, 1910, by the order of District Magistrate. Appellant has filed the criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun against said order. It appears that the appellate court dismissed the appeal for 2 non-prosecution on the ground that the appellant’s counsel was not ready to argue, and application for exemption of appellant was also rejected. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the case of Parasuram Patel and another Vs. State of Orrisa (1994) 4 SCC page no. 664, wherein Apex Court has held in the case of criminal appeal, it should not be dismissed for default, rather the appellate court should decide the matter on merits even in the absence of the appellant. 5) Therefore, the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.05.2011 is set aside. The appellate court is directed to decide the criminal appeal on merits. However, it is observed that it should not be necessary for the appellate court to grant adjournment again, unless there is a compelling reason. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 15.09.2011 JM