Criminal appeal dismissal on extraneous considerations was unsustainable; the appeal was restored for hearing on merits.

A criminal appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution on extraneous or prejudicial considerations unrelated to the appellant's non-appearance. The Supreme Court noted that, in criminal appellate jurisdiction, the court must confine itself to whether the appeal should be heard on merits and must act with judicial restraint and impartiality. An order influenced by irrelevant observations or a closed mind is unsustainable. The dismissal order was set aside, and the criminal appeal was restored to the file for hearing on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the criminal appeal for want of prosecution by relying on extraneous considerations, and whether the appeal ought to be restored for hearing on merits.

Analysis: The High Court's order proceeded beyond the narrow question before it and was influenced by matters unrelated to the appellant's non-appearance. In criminal appellate jurisdiction, the decision to dispose of the appeal cannot rest on irrelevant observations or perceived conduct of advocates where the issue is only whether the appeal should be heard on merits. Judicial restraint and impartiality are essential to fair adjudication, and prejudice or a closed mind is incompatible with the judicial function. The order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was set aside and the criminal appeal was directed to be restored to the file and heard on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal appeal cannot be dismissed on extraneous and prejudicial considerations, and an order tainted by lack of judicial restraint or impartiality is liable to be set aside with restoration of the appeal for decision on merits.

---