SUKHDEV SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                                                                                       +-

A                                 SUKHDEV SINGH
                                           v.
                               STATEOFHARYANA

                                    JUNE I, 2007

B                   [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]


          Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

C        Appeal against conviction-Disposed of by High Court ex-parte against
    accused-Held: In the event of non-appearance of counsel for accused, the
    High Court should not have taken up the matter ex-parte. Matter remitted
    to High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

          The accused, who was convicted u/s 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and
D   Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to imprisonment for 10
    years by the trial court, filed the instant appeal against the order of the High
    Court disposing of his appeal ex-parte.

          It was contended for the appellant that the lawyer who was appearing
    for him in the High Court had withdrawn from the case without any intimation
E   to the appellant; and no notice was received by the appellant regarding non-
    appearance.

          Disposing of the appeals the Court

           HELD: Since the High itself was not sure whether notice was served or
F   not, it should not have taken up the matter ex pa rte. The matter is remitted to
    the High Court for fresh consideration on merits expeditiously.
                                                                  (Para-511915-Hl

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I049 of
G 2005.
          From the Final Judgmen.t and Order dated 07.07.2004 of the High Court
    of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 58-SB of 1992.
                                                                                            J


                                          914
H
-+
              SUKHDEVSINGHv. STATEOFHARYANA[PASAYAT,J.)                           915

                                             WITH                                         A
          Cr!. M.P. No. 4562 of2007.

          U.ijal Singh, J.P. Singh and A.S. Bahar (for R.C. Kaushik) for the Appellant.

          Roopansh Purohit (for T.V. George) for the Respondent.                          B
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment
     of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing
     the appeal filed by the appellant. The appeal was filed by the appellant             C
     against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa convicting him for
     offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
     Substances Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') and sentencing him to undergo
     imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default
     stipulation.
                                                                                          D
           2. Appeal before the High Court was disposed of in the absence of
     learned counsel for the appellant. The order itself noticed that with the
     assistance of learned counsel for the State, learned Single Judge perused the
     records and delivered the judgment.
                                                                                          E
           3. From the order of the High Court it appears that notice was issued
     to the appellant for engaging another counsel as the High Court noticed that
     he was not represented. It is noted in the order that there was no evidence
     to show that the notice was served on the appellant or not, yet the High Court
     disposed of the matter ex parte.
                                                                                          F
           4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
     that no notice was received by the appellant regarding non-appearance of his
     lawyer. In any event the lawyer who was earlier appearing had withdrawn form
     the case without any intimation to the appellant.
                                                                                          G
           5. Though several other points are raised in support of the appeal, it
     is not necessary to refer to them. Since the High Court itself was not sure
     whether notice was served or not, it should not have taken up the matter ex
     parte. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on
     merits expeditiously. As the matter is pending since long before the High
                                                                                          H
    916                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A   Court. let the parties appear before the High Court without further notice on
    16th July, 2007. The Hon'ble Chief Justice is requested to list the matter before
    an appropriate Bench.

          6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

B         7. In view of this order, no order is necessary to be passed m
    Crl.M.P.No.4562 of2007.

    RP.                                                       Appeal disposed of.




                                                                                        r