AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite the matter is listed as a final opportunity. On 01.09.2026 and 06.10.2026 also, none appeared for the Appellant.
The material on record reveals that the Accused is acquitted by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The record reveals that the Appellant could not serve notice on the Ac-cused since 2009.
Thus, it appears that the Appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
The settled law is that the Criminal Appeals shall be disposed on merits (see Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bani Singh and others vs State of U.P.1), but when the Appellant could not service on the Accused for all these years. In the absence of service of notice on the Accused, this Court cannot proceed to hear the matter and dispose on merits without affording an opportunity to the Accused.
Thus, this Court could not decide the Appeal on the impugned judgment in the absence of service of notice on Respondent /Accused. Thus, the Appeal is liable not only to be dismissed for non-prosecution by invoking inherent powers, but also to be held that the Appellant contributed to the pendency of the Appeal for all these years by failing to pursue to serve notice on the Accused. Thus, the Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution in the circumstances.
As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Footnotes
- 1.(1996) 4 SCC 720