REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.                OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4912 of 2008)

Ambika Mandal  …Appellant

Vs.

The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) ...Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge

of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.

The appeal was directed against  the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the learned second Additional Sessions Judge, Santhal

Pargana,  Dumka,  convicting  the  appellant  for  offences  punishable  under

Sections 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’)

and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short ‘the

DP Act’).    The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for ten years for the first offence and seven years’ for the second offence

and  six  months  rigorous  imprisonment  for  the  offence  punishable  under

Section 4 of the DP Act.

3. The factual background is not necessary to be dealt with in detail as

learned counsel for the appellant’s primary stand was that the appeal was

disposed of ex-parte and, he had no notice of transfer of the case from Patna

High Court to Jharkhand High Court.

4. Originally, the appeal was pending before the Patna High Court and

on reorganization of States, it was transferred to the Jharkhand High Court.

The appellant had no notice and, therefore, when the matter was taken up,

there  was  no  representation.   This  position  is  not  disputed  by  learned

counsel for the respondent-State.

5. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit

the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal.  To avoid unnecessary delay,

let the parties appear before the High Court on 10.12.2008 without further

2

notice.  The Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to allot the

case to an appropriate Bench.

6. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits

of the case. It is fairly accepted by learned counsel for the appellant that

prayer for bail will not be pressed, in case the appeal is taken up for early

hearing.   In  that  regard,  we  have  already  passed  the  above  order.   We

request the High Court to explore the possibility of expeditious disposal of

the appeal which is fifteen years old, preferably within four months from the

date of receipt of copy of our order.

7. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.  

  ………………………………

…..J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…………….…………………….J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, November 28, 2008                    

3