Arvind Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) Despite repeated calls, none turns up on behalf of the appellant. Although, the appellant- Sant Lal- is the complainant in this case. Lower court record was directed to be summoned at the expense of the appelant on his request by this Court on 26.11.1084, but the office report dated 06.01.2018 reflects that lower court record has not been received till date.
(2.) Appeal is of the year 1987; 30 years have already elapsed and this appeal against order of dismissal/rejection of complaint has been pending ever since. It would be feasible and in the interest of justice that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping the matter pending in this Court even after elapse of three decades.
(3.) Faced with the aforesaid contingency and looking to the huge pendency of cases before this Court, this Court is not inclined to pass over this appeal. 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.;