NETRAJ SINGH versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 370 · Decided: 22-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-... 
A 
NETRAJ SINGH 
.. 
v. 
STATEOFM.P. 
MARCH 22, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARlllTPASAYAT AND~ V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Practice and Procedure-Change of counsel-Acquittal of accused-
~-
appellant by Sessions Court-Appeal by State before High Court, during 
c pendency of which, accused filed application for permission to change counsel 
which was al/owed-However, on the day of final hearing in respect of the 
appeal, the cause list did not reflect name of the new counsel-Consequently 
there was no appearance on behalf of accused when the matter was taken 
-~ 
up for hearing-Reversal of order of acquittal by High Court in absence of 
accused's counsel-Challenge to-Held: There was obvious prejudice to the 
D accused-Hence judgment of High Court not sustainable-Matter remitted 
back for fresh consideration-Penal Code, 1860-s.302 r/w s.149. 
\ 
Appellant who was tried for alleged commission of offences punishable 
. 
I 
, 
under s.302 r/w. 149 IPC was acquitted by the Trial Court on ground of 
E 
inadequate evidence. The State filed appeal before High Court But when the 
matter was taken up for final hearing in respect of the appeal, there was no 
appearance ori behalf of the appellant High Court proceeded to hear the appeal 
in absence of counsel for the appellant and thereafter reversed the order of 
his acquittal by holding him guilty of the charged offences. Hence the present 
appeal 
F 
.. 
It was submitted before this Court that during pendency of appeal before 
the High Court, the Appellant had filed an application for permission to 
change the counsel which was allowed, but since name of the new counsel 
was not reflected in the cause list for the concerned day in respect of the 
appeal, the Appellant went unrepresented. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Since the name of counsel who had been permitted to appear on 
_,,,...-
behalf of the appellant was not rtflected in the cause list, obviously the - t 
H 
370 
~ 
- --1 
~ 
\.., -
NETRAJ SINGH v.ST ATE OF M.P. [PASA Y AT, J.] 
371 
appellant has beell' prejudiced. This is a case where the order of acquittal A 
passed in favour of AP,pellant has been reversed by the High Court. In the 
aforesaid circumstanees, the order of the High Court is set aside and the 
matter remitted back for fresh consideration. The name of the new counsel 
shall be indicated in the cause list and not the name of counsel who was earlier 
appearing. (Paras 5 and 6) (372-C-EJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crl. M.P. No. 10384 of 2004. 
IN 
Criminal Appeal No. 1006 of2006. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 02.05.2006 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 1992. 
R.P. Gupta, Parmanand Gaur and Jamshed Bey for the Appellant. 
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversing 
the order of acquittal passed by the trial Judge i.e. learned Additional Sessions 
Judge, Narsinghpur. Appellant was tried for alleged commission of offences 
punishable under Sectio~ 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 
1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The trial Court found the evidence to be inadequate 
and held the accused:appellant not guilty and accordingly directed the acquittal. 
2. The State preferred an appeal questioning the said order of acquittal. 
It appears that the matter was listed for hearing on 1.5.2006. There was no 
appearance on behalf of the present appellant who was the respondent in the 
appeal before the High Court when the matter was taken up for final hearing. 
The High Court proceeded to hear the appeal in the absence of learned 
counsel and reversed the order of acquittal and held the appellant guilty of 
charged offences. 
3. It is the stand of learned counsel for the appellant that during the 
pendency of the appeal the appellant filed an application for permission to 
change the counsel and sought permission to engage one Mr. Ashutosh 
Singh, Advocate to agpear on his behalf in place of Mr. Anil Nima who was 
I 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A earlier appearing at the time of hearing. By order dated 31.1.2005 the application 
was allowed and the Court granted pennission to Mr. Ashutosh Singh to 
appear on behalf of the appellant in place of earlier counsel. But in the cause 
list for the concerned day in respect of the appeal, the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.