Fair hearing requires effective notice before reversing acquittal; conviction set aside and matter remanded for rehearing.

A fair hearing is not satisfied by a remote or stale notice where the hearing is listed after a long interval and the cause list does not effectively inform the appellants or their counsel. The Court noted that mere issuance of notice years earlier could not amount to a proper opportunity of being heard when the listing practice failed to provide practical notice. On those facts, the appellants were held to have been denied a proper hearing, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appeal was remanded for fresh hearing after notice to the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were denied a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard before the acquittal was reversed and they were convicted in appeal.

Analysis: The appeal had been posted for hearing after a long interval, but the cause list did not show the names of the appellants or their advocate. The record showed that the appellants or their counsel were not effectively informed of the hearing date, and mere issuance of notice years earlier could not amount to a proper opportunity of hearing. In such circumstances, it was unreasonable to treat the appellants as having had notice when the court's own listing practice failed to give practical notice to counsel or parties.

Conclusion: The appellants were denied a proper hearing, and the order of conviction and sentence was set aside. The appeal was remanded for fresh hearing after notice to the parties.

---