TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Revives Criminal Appeal Dismissed for Non-Prosecution, Mandates Hearing with Amicus Curiae and Preserves Legal Arguments</h1> <h3>K. Muruganandam & Ors. Versus State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr.</h3> SC granted leave and condoned delay in a criminal appeal dismissed by HC for non-prosecution. The Court held that an appeal cannot be dismissed solely due ... Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution - condonation of delay in filing appeal - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that if the accused does not appear through counsel appointed by him/her, the Court is obliged to proceed with the hearing of the case only after appointing an amicus curiae, but cannot dismiss the appeal merely because of non-representation or default of the advocate for the accused. There are no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgment and order and relegate the parties before the High Court for hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 246/2012 afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law - The parties to appear before the High Court on 31.08.2021, when the Court may proceed to hear the appeal or pass such other appropriate order as may be necessary. The Supreme Court, through Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, granted leave and condoned delay in a criminal appeal dismissed by the Madras High Court for non-prosecution due to the appellants' counsel's non-appearance. The Court held that 'if the accused does not appear through counsel appointed by him/her, the Court is obliged to proceed with the hearing of the case only after appointing an amicus curiae, but cannot dismiss the appeal merely because of non-representation or default of the advocate' (citing Kabira v. State of U.P. and Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam). Accordingly, the impugned order dismissing the appeal was set aside as unsustainable. The appellants were directed to surrender and produce proof before the appeal was remitted to the High Court for fresh hearing on merits. The Court left all contentions open and noted that if the appeal cannot proceed expeditiously, the appellants may apply for bail, to be considered on merits. The appeal and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
