AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for restoration of Cr. Appeal ( DB) No. 216 of 2003, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 8.9.2008.
It is submitted that the said Cr. Appeal No. 216 of 2003 was filed against the judgement of attachment, passed in Animal Husbandry Case.
This Court by judgement dated 21.6.2007 held that the said appeal was not maintainable. The appellants preferred appeal before the Supreme Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court by order dated 14th July, 2008 remanded the matter on concession made by learned Additional Solicitor General that the appeal was maintainable. Such order was received by this Court on 11.8.2008 and this court ordered to list the case along with names of counsel appearing for the parties. Then on 13.8.2008, the following order was passed:
This matter was listed on 11.8.2008 along with the order of the Supreme Court which has been communicated. After perusing the order of the Supreme Court, we found that the name of counsel for both sides was not appearing in the daily cause list as such we adjourned the matter by directing to publish the names of the counsels of the parties in the daily cause list.
Today when the case is called out, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants though the name of counsel for the appellants is appearing in the daily cause list.
In this view of the matter, we are giving one more indulgence to the appellant let the appeal be listed under the same heading on 29th August, 2008.
Then on 29.08.2008, the following order was passed:
Today also, when the case was called out, nobody appears on behalf of the appellant. However, learned counsel for the C.B.I. is present.
In view of the order of the Supreme Court, let the appeal be listed on 8th September, 2008 for ''hearing''. The parties should be ready to argue the case on that date.
Ultimately, on 8.9.2008, the following order was passed:
Though the appeal has been placed after remand from the Supreme Court but no one appears on behalf of the appellants to press this appeal.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, who appears on behalf of the respondent-CBI, states that the appellant no. 1-Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey died during pendency of the trial and so far as rest of the appellants are concerned, they are said to be Benamidar of appellant no. 1.
Since no one appears on behalf of the appellants to press this appeal on repeated calls and therefore the same is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Mr. Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that when the appeal was taken up, unfortunately the lawyer for the appellants did not appear and therefore the appeal be restored.
On the other hand, Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that ample opportunity was given to the appellants to argue the case. He further submitted that no grounds are made out for restoration.
From the aforesaid orders, it appears that inspite of repeated opportunities, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. On going through the entire petition, we find that no grounds are made out for restoration of criminal appeal. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.