Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Kishor Kamlakar Patil and Abhay Parshuram Bhagat, were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, in Session Case No.111 of 1993 for offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-. They filed Criminal Appeal No.9 of 1997 before the Bombay High Court. When the appeal was called for hearing on 15th November 2010, the advocate for the appellants, Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, informed the court that the appellants had taken away the brief from their office on 18th December 2000 and had not engaged any other counsel since then. She expressed inability to assist the court and requested either issuance of notice to the appellants or appointment of amicus curiae. The court observed that since the appellants themselves had preferred the appeal and had neglected to engage another advocate for ten years, they had demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. The court held that there was no question of issuing notice to the appellants as they were the ones who filed the appeal, and appointment of amicus curiae was not warranted because the appellants had not shown due diligence. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against conviction - Dismissal for non-prosecution - Appellants' advocate returned brief in 2000, and appellants failed to engage another advocate until 2010 - Court held that it was for the appellants to ensure diligent prosecution, and no amicus curiae need be appointed as the appellants themselves neglected the appeal - Appeal dismissed (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellants failed to engage another advocate after their counsel returned the brief.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
Law Points
- Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution
- duty of appellant to prosecute appeal diligently
- no obligation to appoint amicus curiae when appellant neglects case
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (11) 55
Criminal Appeal No.9 of 1997
Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan (holding for Mr. N.V. Pradhan) for appellants, Mrs. S.D. Shinde (Additional Public Prosecutor) for respondent
Kishor Kamlakar Patil, Abhay Parshuram Bhagat
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for attempt to murder
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to challenge their conviction and sentence under Sections 307/34 IPC
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, in Session Case No.111 of 1993
Previous Decisions
Conviction by Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, in Session Case No.111 of 1993
Issues
Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellants failed to engage another advocate after their counsel returned the brief.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants' counsel submitted that the brief was taken away by appellants on 18.12.2000 and they had not engaged another advocate; court may issue notice or appoint amicus curiae.
Ratio Decidendi
An appellant who has preferred an appeal against conviction must diligently prosecute it; if the appellant neglects to engage another advocate after the counsel returns the brief for a long period, the court is not obliged to appoint amicus curiae and may dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an appeal against conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code...
Therefore, learned counsel Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnana, for the accused, expressed inability to assist the Court...
It is clear that they do not want to prosecute the appeal.
Procedural History
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, in Session Case No.111 of 1993. They filed Criminal Appeal No.9 of 1997 before the Bombay High Court. The appeal was called for hearing on 15th November 2010, when the appellants' counsel informed the court that the brief had been returned in 2000 and no other counsel was engaged. The court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 307, 34
