The Himachal Pradesh High Court affirms that in a criminal appeal against acquittal, the absence of both the appellant and their counsel—despite proper service of notice—is a valid ground for dismissal for non-prosecution. This judgment maintains current procedural law and establishes clear precedent for similar cases in criminal litigation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR.A/333/2012 of MS MEGHA LEASING AND MARKETING GAGGAL Vs GOPAL SINGH |
| CNR | HPHC010095842012 |
| Date of Registration | 01-01-2012 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Justice Rakesh Kainthla) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a criminal appeal against acquittal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant and counsel are absent and have left no instructions. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the absence of both the appellant and their counsel, despite proper service of notice, constitutes sufficient ground to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The appellant’s counsel informed the court of not having any instructions to appear due to the appellant having left the place. The court found there was no representation on behalf of the appellant on the date fixed for hearing. In view of this, the court dismissed the appeal and pending miscellaneous applications for non-prosecution. The order underscores the importance of diligent prosecution of appeals and affirms the court’s power to dismiss appeals where parties show no interest in pursuing them. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The registered AD cover for service upon the appellant showed the appellant/addressee had left the place without instructions. Counsel for the appellant informed the court he had no instructions to appear. Despite service of notice for the given date, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant for the hearing. The appeal was against an order of acquittal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Criminal appellate courts in other states considering dismissal for non-prosecution |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that criminal appeals against acquittal may be dismissed for non-prosecution when both appellant and their counsel are absent, despite proper service of notice.
- Clarifies that an endorsement of “left without instructions” by counsel is sufficient justification for dismissal.
- Lawyers must ensure diligent representation or risk summary dismissal of appeals.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that counsel for the appellant filed a registered AD cover indicating the appellant had “left the place without instructions.”
- The appellant’s counsel stated that he had “no instruction to appear” due to the endorsement on the registered AD cover.
- Court records showed the appellant was duly served for the hearing date, but still, there was no representation for the appellant on the hearing date.
- Since neither the appellant nor counsel appeared or provided instructions to proceed, and with proper service established, the court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as well as any pending miscellaneous applications.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Counsel filed the registered AD cover showing the appellant had “left the place without instructions”.
- Counsel submitted that he had no instructions to appear because of the endorsement.
Respondent-State:
No detailed arguments recorded in the judgment; presence noted.
Factual Background
The appeal was filed against an order of acquittal. Service of notice had been effected on the appellant, but the registered acknowledgment due (AD) cover returned the endorsement that the appellant/addressee had left without instructions. On the date fixed for hearing, counsel for the appellant informed the court no instructions had been received to appear or pursue the matter. As a result, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, prompting the court to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, along with pending miscellaneous applications.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment applies procedural law regarding the power of the High Court to dismiss criminal appeals for non-prosecution. It emphasizes the procedural requirement for active prosecution, and that absence and lack of instruction from the appellant and counsel—despite proper notice—warrants dismissal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing procedural law concerning dismissal for non-prosecution was applied and upheld.