Judgment · Supreme Court

The appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court u/ss.304-C, 306 IPC and s.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court. The accused filed the instant appeal primarily E on the ground that the High Court dismissed his appeal without his being represented. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: Originally, the appeal was pending before the F Patna High Court and on reorganization of States, it was transferred to the Jharkhand High Court. The appellant had no notice and, therefore, when the matter was taken up, there was no representation. This position is not disputed by the respondent-State. In the circumstances, G the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal expeditiou~ly. [Paras 4 and 5] [764-H; 765-A-B) 763 H 764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. A B c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal -+.,.,.. No. 1891 of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 12',5.2003 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Crl. Appeal No. 91 of 1991. Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant. Manish Kumar Saran for the Respondents. 'f The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. .

#2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the D appeal filed by the appellant. The appeal was directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence pas$ed by the learned second Additional Sessions Judge, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 304-8 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short 'the DP Act'). The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the first offence and seven years' for the second offence and six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the DP Act. E F

#3. The factual background is not necessary to be dealt with. in detail as learned counsel for the appellant's primary stand was that the appeal was disposed of ex-parte and, he liad no notice of transfer of the case from Patna High Court to G Jharkhand·High Court.

#4. Originally, the appeal was pending before the Patna High Court and on reorganization of States, it was transferred to the Jharkhand High Court. The appellant had no notice and, therefore, when the matter was taken up, there was no H Ii. ~ ., )<_ ' A. AMBIKA MANDAL v. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 765 - -t representation. This position is not disputed by learned counsel A for the respondent-State. -I _,,.

#5. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the High Court on 10.12.2008 witho.ut further notice. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to allot the case to an appropriate Bench. B

#6. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion , on the merits of the case. It is fairly accepted by learned counsel ' for the appellant that prayer for bail will not .be pressed, in case the appeal is taken up for early hearing. In that regard, we have already passed the above order. We request the High Court to explore the possibility of expeditious disposal of the appeal which is fifteen years old, preferably within four months from the D date of receipt of copy of our order. c ~ '#- R.P.

#7. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Appeal disposed of.