B.PADMARAJ, S.ABDUL NAZEER
MALLIKARJUN NINGAPPA RAGATI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
( 1 ) THERE is no appearance for the appellants when the matter has reached and taken up for hearing though the appellants have appeared through their counsel and the cause list indicated the name of the learned counsel for the appellants. There was absolutely no representation on behalf of the appellants when the appeal had reached for final hearing. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants did not turn up to argue the matter though we waited for quite some time. This appeal being of the year 2003 and there being no representation on behalf of the appellants, we had no other alternative except to proceed with the matter in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellants for the reason that we cannot dismiss the criminal appeal for default. It is needless to point out that the criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for default and it has to be disposed of only on merits. Under the circumstances therefore, to be fair to the appellants, we thought it just and proper to appoint an Amicus curiae for the appellants to argue the matter and also to assist the Court in disposing of the appeal on merits. Under the circumstances, we deem it proper to appoint an amicu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.