- (1.) Sri Vichitra Kumar Chandel, holding brief of Sri Veer Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has stated at the bar that despite repeated letters sent by the office of Sri Veer Singh to the appellant, he has failed to respond. He has further stated that Sri Veer Singh has no instructions to argue this appeal.
(2.) Record shows that this appeal is of the year 1990 and the appellant is on bail.
(3.) Faced with the aforesaid contingency, the question which arises before us is that whether we are bound to adjourn the matter in the absence of both the appellant or his counsel. Under identical circumstances, the Apex Court after a comprehensive analysis of previous decisions on the issue has distilled the legal position into six propositions in paragraph 19 of its judgement delivered in the case of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, 2013 3 SCC 721 : 19.1 That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits; 19.2 That the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent; 19.3 That the court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so;" 19.4 That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgement of the trial court; 19.5 That if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the appellant-accused if his lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in law would preclude the court from doing so; and 19.6 That if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation.;