Very Important Point
It is no doubt true that it is open to the Court to dispose of an appeal on merits even in the absence of the learned counsel appearing for the parties when the case is set down for hearing and the advocate or the party concerned does not appear. However, when the learned counsel could not appear before the Court not on account of the fault either of the appellant or the advocates themselves, but on account of mistake committed by the Registry of the High Court in not showing the names of the counsel in the cause list properly and the counsel not being aware of the listing of the case before the Court in such a matter we do not think that principle should be extended.

Judgment

S. Rajendra Babu, J.-Leave gran­ted.

2. The appellants were chargesheeted for offences arising under Sec­tion 304 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 498A, I.P.C. The allegation made in the chargesheet is that one G. Madhavi Latha was married to Manik Prabhu the son of the appellants herein on 8.6.1983; that the deceased Madhavi Latha, the appellants and her husband were living in Hyderabad, that on 27.6.1989 Madhavi Latha is said to have committed suicide by setting fire to herself in the presence of her children and she succumbed to the same on 29.6.1989; that the appellants were ill-treating the deceased by hurling abuses at her and did not provide proper or timely food as she did not bring enough money towards dowry. In the trial 20 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and several documents were marked while the defence examined two witnesses and also got several documents marked. The trial court held that the offences arising under Section 304 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were not established and acquitted them of the said charges. However, the trial court convicted the appellants for offences arising under Section 498A and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

3. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the appellants preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 1993 on the file of the High Court. The appellants engaged the services of Shri Shankar Rao Bilo­liker and Shri Milind Gokhale and subsequently they were replaced by Shri Anil Kumar and Shri C. Praveen Kumar, Advocates who filed memo of appearance with consent of the learned counsel appearing earlier in the case. The appeal was listed for hearing on 12.8.1997 when Mr. Milind Gokhale filed a memo stating that the appellant had taken away the file and wanted to engage some other counsel and he had already en­dorsed his no objection on the Vakaltnama. The matter was listed for hearing on 14.8.1997, 26.8.1997, 27.8.1997 and finally on 28.8.1997 on which date the matter was dismissed. On all these dates the name of Mr. Milind Gokhale was shown as the learned counsel for the appellants whereas in fact Mr. Anil Kumar and Shri Praveen Kumar had filed memo of appearance on 25.10.1993. However, that information was not put up with the file, fed into the computer either, nor printed in the cause list. In those circumstances the appeal came to dis­missed in the absence of the learned counsel for appellants.

4. An application was filed by the parties under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Miscellaneous Petition No. 4201 of 1997 seeking for setting aside the judgment passed on 28.8.1997 dismissing their appeal. The said application set out the facts to which we have adverted to now about the change of the advocates and the names of the new advocates appearing in the case not having been shown in the cause list. In fact, the High Court held an enquiry into the matter and called upon the office to make a report and the said report, a copy of which is made available to us, reflects what we have stated about the mistake of the office in not indicating the names of the advocates and about the change of the advocates. It is clearly admitted in the Report that by mistake the names of Mr. Anil Kumar and Mr. Praveen Kumar were not shown in the cause list. The High Court however, dis­missed the petition observing that Mr. Milind Gokhale whose name was shown in the cause list should have informed the appellants and the criminal appeal having been disposed of on merits, the same could not be restored. The respondent remained unrepresented.

5. It is no doubt true that it is open to the Court to dispose of an appeal on merits even in the absence of the learned counsel appearing for the parties when the case is set down for hearing and the advocate or the par