1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:18.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.RC(MD)No.221 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.Nandhu @ Aanandan 2.Sathishkumar :Revision Petitioners -Vs- State by The Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Thanjavur. (Crime No.20 of 2011) :Respondent Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.447 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, dated 23.02.2011 and set aside the same. For petitioner : Mr.A.Arun Prasad For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran,Government Advocate (Criminal side) ORDER The petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.221 of 2001 are the accused in Crime No.20 of 2011 registered by the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 307 I.P.C. 2.The petitioners/accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.01.2011. The petitioners/accused moved a petition for bail before the Court of Principal District and Session Judge, Thanjavur in Cr.M.P.No.187 of 2011 and the same was ordered on 19.01.2011, subject to the condition of execution of sureties and a further condition that they shall report before the Thanjavur East Police Station daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. 3.As the petitioners/accused did not comply with the condition imposed by the said Court, the State moved Cr.M.P.No.447 of 2011 for cancellation of bail. Notices were ordered to the petitioners. The Petitioners herein on receipt of notice engaged the services of an advocate, who appeared on 18.02.2011 and at his request the case was adjourned to 21.02.2011 for filing counter. 4.On 21.02.2011, neither any counter was filed nor any representation was made on behalf of the petitioners herein. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition for cancellation of bail, it has been stated that the petitioners/accused have not reported and signed before Thanjavur East Police Station in compliance of the order and that after the grant of bail, they have committed one more offence. The Lower Court found that the petitioners/accused have failed to comply with the condition imposed by the Court, while granting bail and they have not given any explanation as to the non-compliance of the condition imposed in the order granting bail Therefore, it allowed the application filed by the State and cancelled the bail granted to them and challenging the vires of the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 5.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr.P.Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent and also perused the impugned order. 6.In 2009-1-L.W.803 (SC) - The Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh & Anr. v. Raghu Raj, the disposal of an appeal on merits in the absence of the counsel came up for consideration and the Honourable Supreme https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Court of India after taking into consideration its earlier decision observed as follows: "33.In Mangi Lal & Ors. v. State of M.P., (1994) 4 SCC 564, an appeal against conviction recorded by the trial Court was dismissed by the High Court for non- appearance of counsel for the appellant due to 'strike' by lawyers. The Court held that dismissal of appeal by the High Court was improper. The appeal was directed to be restored to file and be heard on merits. (see also Tahil Ram Issardas Sadaranganj & Ors. V. Ramchand Issardas Sadaranganj & Anr., 1993 Supp (3) SCC 256). 34.From the case law referred to above, it is clear that this Court has always insisted advocates to appear and argue the case and when it is called out for hearing. Failure to do so would be unfair to the client and discourteous to the Court and must be severely discountenanced. At the same time, the Court has also emphasized doing justice to the cause wherein it is appropriate that both the parties are present before the Court and they are heard. It has been noted by the Court that once a party engages a counsel, he thinks that his advocate will appear when the case will be taken up for hearing and the Court calls upon the counsel to make submissions. It is keeping in view these principles that the Court does not proceed to hear the matter in absence of the counsel." 7.Though its stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for cancellation of bail that the petitioners/accused did not comply with the conditions and in that context the bail granted to them came to be cancelled, this Court taking into consideration the fact that on account of advocates boycott on 21.02.2011, no representation could be made, is of the considered view that one more opportunity is to be given to the petitioners to contest Cr.M.P.No.447 of 2011. 8.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 23.02.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.447 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur is set aside and the matter is once again remanded to the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur for fresh adjudication in accordance with law Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. 2.The Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Thanjavur. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Sj RP/29.03.2011/2P/4C. Order in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.221 of 2011 and M.P(MD) No.1 of 2011 delivered on 18.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/