Parasuram Patel And Another Petitioner/ v. State Of Orissa .

Factual and Procedural Background

Special leave was granted. The High Court had dismissed the appellants' criminal appeal solely due to the non-appearance (default) of the appellants and their counsel. The present order addresses the validity of that dismissal and the appropriate course for deciding a criminal appeal where the appellant or counsel is absent.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a criminal appeal can be dismissed solely on the ground of default in appearance of the appellants and their counsel.
2. Whether the High Court was required to decide the criminal appeal on merits by examining the record even in the absence of the appellants or their counsel.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that it is well settled that a criminal appeal cannot be dismissed merely because the appellants or their counsel did not appear. Even in their absence, the appellate court must examine the record and decide the appeal on merits. Since the High Court dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, the impugned order dated 7-4-1992 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for a decision on merits, with a direction to dispose of it within two months of receiving the order.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED; IMPUGNED ORDER SET ASIDE; REMANDED.

The High Court's dismissal of the criminal appeal for default of appearance was nullified, and the High Court must re-decide the appeal on merits after going through the record, even if the appellants or their counsel are absent. The High Court was directed to dispose of the matter within two months of receiving this order. The opinion does not indicate that any new precedent was set beyond applying the stated settled principle.