Bombay High Court
GAJANAN TRADINGversusBALASAHEB VIJAY GUJAR AND ANR
- Disposal
- DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION/DEFAULT AT ADMISSION STAGE
Holding
The appeal is dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the appellant's failure to appear.
Summary
The appellant, Gajanan Trading, failed to appear before the Bombay High Court despite being given two prior opportunities to do so on 18 July 2026 and 18 August 2026. The State, represented by Advocate Nitin B. Patil, argued that the appellant's continued absence demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. The Court noted that the matter was listed under the caption “For Dismissal” to provide a final chance for the appellant to appear. Since neither the appellant nor his counsel were present, the Court concluded that the appeal could not proceed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate course of action when an appellant fails to appear for a scheduled hearing despite multiple opportunities?
Subjects
- non-prosecution
- appeal dismissal
- absence of parties
- criminal procedure
- Lok-Adalat
Judgment
1
31-APEAL-23-2015 (CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2015
Gajanan Trading …...Appellant
VERSUS
Balasaheb Vijay Gujar And Anr. …...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
None for the Appellant.
None for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Nitin B. Patil, APP, for Respondent No.2 - State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C.
Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU
1. Today, the present Appeal is listed under the caption “For
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.08.24
20:32:42
+0530
Dismissal”.
2. When the Appeal was called out, the names of the Appellant as
well as the Advocate-on-record (Aniket U. Nikam), are called out by the
Court Sheristedar, none appears.
3. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned APP, appears for Respondent No.2 –
State.
4. On 18th August, 2026, the following order was made.
“1. Neither the Appellant nor the Advocate for the Appellant
is present when this Appeal is called out.
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2
31-APEAL-23-2015 (CR).DOC
2. On 18th July, 2026, the following order was passed before
the Lok-Adalat.
“1. None for the Appellant.
2. Place the matter before the Regular Court on 18 th
August, 2026 for orders”
3. To afford an opportunity for the Appellant to appear, list
this Appeal on 24th August, 2026, under the caption “For
Dismissal”.
5. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned APP, for Respondent No.2 – State,
submits that sufficient opportunities have been afforded to the Appellant
on 18th July, 2026 and 18th August, 2026. He submits that, despite such
opportunities, neither the Appellant nor the learned Advocate for the
Appellant is present today.
6. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned APP, for Respondent No.2 – State,
states that this matter is today listed under the caption “For Dismissal”. He
states that the continued absence of the Appellant and the learned
Advocate for the Appellant indicates that the Appellant is not interested in
prosecuting the present Appeal. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned APP, therefore,
insist for dismissal of the Appeal.
7. In view of the above, left with no other option, this appeal is
dismissed for non – prosecution.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…