Dismissed
Mahesh v. State
Delhi HCCRL.A./469/2002
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal appeal in default due to the appellant's absence and inability to serve notice, while permitting revival upon appearance and directing police efforts to locate the appellant.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed in default; permission to revive upon appearance granted; bonds cancelled.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
$~R-12
¶2
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
¶3
+ CRL.A. 469/2002
¶4
MAHESH ..... Appellant Through: None.
¶5
versus
¶6
STATE ..... Respondent
¶7
Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP.
¶8
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA O R D E R % 05.01.2018
¶9
- None appears for the appellant.
¶10
- This appeal was admitted way back in 2002 and on 8th September 2005 the sentence was suspended. From the memo of parties, it is seen that the Appellant has his permanent address in Farukkabad, U.P.
¶11
- The police officer from PS Ambedkar Nagar is not in a position to inform whether the Appellant is available at the given address.
¶12
- The present appeal has been shown on the regular board of this Court for well over two months now. If notices are now sent to the Appellant for his appearance in Court, it would in all probability not be served and there will have to be a indefinite wait for that to happen. The better course that commends itself to the Court is that this appeal be dismissed in default with
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- appellant
MAHESH
- respondent
STATE
Coram
AI extract
S.MURALIDHAR
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court