A litigant's failure to appear at a hearing after due notice does not constitute a violation of natural justice, allowing the court to enforce its judgment.

1. This is an application filed by the original accused in Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 1983. This Court, by a final Judgment and Order dated 26-8-1991, allowed the Criminal Appeal which had been filed by the State of Maharashtra. That appeal was directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay, on 3-5-1983. The accused, who is a businessman, was charged with having committed an offence punishable under S. 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 , essentially in so far as having obtained an import licence valued at Rs. 47, 84,761/-had imported items on the basis that they were for his actual use and that the same had been sold in the open market. The appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra against the order of acquittal was admitted by this Court and notice in respect of the same was served on the Accused on 5-10-1983. The Accused, though a well - placed businessman, did not take any action on that notice and did not have any appearance filed on his behalf. Even though the appeal related to the year 1983, it was only in October, 1989 that the same finally appeared on board. My learned brother, Moharir, J., after hearing the matter for a considerable length of time, made an endorsement in the case papers that the Accused should be served once again. Though it is now contended before me by Mr. Vashi, learned Counsel who represents the Applicant - Accused, that the Court directed that his client should be served once again because the Court was of the view that the earlier service was not a good or valid service, I am satisfied from a perusal of the proceedings that this was, in fact, not so. The facts of this case are gross and it was obvious that after hearing the appellant's learned Counsel for some time, the Court was, prima facie, of the view that the acquittal order would have to be disturbed. It was purely a magnanimous gesture on the part of my brother Moharir, J. that he felt that the Accused be heard at least on the question of sentence and that for this purpose he be afforded one more opportunity. A fresh notice from this Court was accordingly served on the Accused, after which the petition came up for final hearing before me in the month of August 1991. This appeal is already 8 years old and is one of the very few old pending matters. There is nothing in the case papers to indicate as to why it was not listed for hearing all these years, but it is left to the Court to draw an appropriate inference that this could not have happened by accident. The matter was ready for hearing in 1983 itself and one may reasonably assume that it was deliberately kept in cold - storage. That the Accused had nothing to do with it is difficult to accept.

2. In spite of service of fresh notice, the Applicant - Accused once again ignored this proceeding and did not appear when the matter reached for final hearing. In fact, for this reason, the appeal was adjourned several times purely in order to enable the Accused and his learned Counsel, if they had missed out on the matter, to appear. Thereafter, having regard to the importance of the case and the complexities involved, the Court directed Mr. Patwardhan, Senior Advocate on the Customs Panel, to assist the Court, apart from the learned A.P.P. It is also essential for me to record that since the Accused was not represented, though served, I had taken the additional precaution of personally reading the entire paper - book meticulo