- (1.) Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) In our view, the following order passed by the High Court cannot be justified : "This appeal was filed on 25.4.1995 without mentioning the percentage and address of accused opposite parties. More than four years have passed but no steps have been taken. In the circumstances application seeking leave is rejected for want of prosecution. The appeal is rejected. "
(3.) Before dismissing the matter summarily, the Court ought to have referred to Section 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code specifically provides procedure to be followed for summary disposal of criminal appeal. Had High court followed the said provisions and called for the record and proceeding of the sessions case, the addresses of the accused would necessarily be there. But the matter remained pending for four years and because of some negligence on the part of the concerned government counsel addresses of the accused were not properly mentioned in the Memo of Appeal, would hardly be a ground for disposing of such a serious matter in slipshod manner.;