- (1.) THE petitioner has preferred this Cr. Rev. against the order impugned passed by the Sessions Judge. Lohardaga in Cr. Appeal No. 08 of 2006 on 11.7.2007 whereby and whereunder, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appeal preferred by the appellant -petitioner was rejected being not maintainable on the ground that the appeal was time barred by 37 days and no petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred. It was further observed that on repeated calls when the lawyer of the appellant petitioner did not appear, the learned Sessions Judge held that the appellant was not interested to get the appeal admitted and accordingly it was rejected.
(2.) MR . Rajiv Anand, the learned counsel submitted that no criminal appeal can be dismissed on the ground of default in appearance as held by the Apex Court in Parasu Ram Patel and Anr. VS. State of Orissa reported in [1995(1) East Cr. C 468(SC)]. It was observed by the Apex Court: - "The court has to go through the record of the case even in the absence of the appellants or their counsel and decide the matter on merit." The Apex Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court for decision on merit.
(3.) THE learned counsel further pointed out that Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in Dashrath Bhokta and Ors vs. State of Bihar reported in [1996(2) East. Cr. C 915(pat.)] held: - "The law is well settled that so far the appeal against the order of conviction is concerned it must be decided after hearing the counsel for the appellant and in any view of the matter, if the counsel is absent, then the court should try to engage a counsel at the state cost for the appellant and then should decide the appeal.";