http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1006 of 2006

PETITIONER: Netraj Singh

RESPONDENT: State of M.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/03/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & R.V. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.10384/2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1006/2006

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

                Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a  Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversing  the order of acquittal passed by the trial Judge i.e. learned  Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur. Appellant was tried  for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section  302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in  short the ’IPC’). The trial Court found the evidence to be  inadequate and held the accused-appellant not guilty and  accordingly directed the acquittal.  

       The State preferred an appeal questioning the said order  of acquittal. It appears that the matter was listed for hearing  on 1.5.2006. There was no appearance on behalf of the  present appellant who was the respondent in the appeal before  the High Court when the matter was taken up for final  hearing. The High Court proceeded to hear the appeal in the  absence of learned counsel and reversed the order of acquittal  and held the appellant guilty of charged offences.  

       It is the stand of learned counsel for the appellant that  during the pendency of the appeal the appellant filed an  application for permission to change the counsel and sought  permission to engage one Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Advocate to  appear on his behalf in place of Mr. Anil Nima who was earlier  appearing at the time of hearing. By order dated 31.1.2005 the  application was allowed and the Court granted permission to  Mr. Ashutosh Singh to appear on behalf of the appellant in  place of earlier counsel. But in the cause list for the concerned  day in respect of the appeal, the name of earlier counsel  appeared. According to learned counsel for the appellant in  view of the aforesaid position, the appellant was  unrepresented.  

       Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the  factual position as stated by the appellant.  

Since the name of learned counsel who had been  permitted to appear on behalf of the present appellant   was  not reflected in the cause list, obviously the appellant has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

been prejudiced. This is a case where the order of acquittal  passed in favour of the appellant has been reversed by the  impugned judgment of the High Court.  

In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the order of  the High Court and remit the matter for fresh consideration.   To avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the  High Court on 13th April, 2007 so that appropriate orders can  be passed by the concerned bench. The name of Mr. Ashutosh  Singh who was permitted to appear on behalf  of the present  appellant by order dated 31.1.2005 shall be indicated in the  cause list and not the name of learned counsel who was earlier  appearing.  We make it clear that by remitting the matter to  the High Court for fresh consideration we have not expressed  any opinion on the merits of the case.  

       The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.