200/ each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
The appeal was listed for hearing on 12.8.1997 when Mr. Milind Gokhale filed a memo stating that the appellant had taken away the file and wanted to engage some other companynsel and he had already endorsed his numberobjection on the Vakalatnama.
An application was filed by the parties under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Miscellaneous Petition No.
In those circumstances the appeal came to be dismissed in the absence of the learned companynsel for appellants.
577 of 1993 on the fife of the High Court.
Aggrieved by the said companyviction, the appellants preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.
The matter was listed for hearing on 14.8.1997, 26.8.97, 27.8.97 and finally on 28.8.1997 on which date the matter was dismissed.
The appellants engaged the services of Shri Shankar Rao Biloliker and Shri Milind Gokhale and subsequently they were replaced by Shri Anil Kumar and Shri C. Praveen Kuamr, Advocates who filed memo of appearance with companysent of the learned companynsel appearing earlier in the case.
4201 of 1997 seeking for setting aside the judgment passed on 28.8.1997 dismissing their appeal.
The said application set out the facts to which we have adverted to number about the change of the advocate and the names of the new advocates appearing in the case number having been shown in the cause list.
On all these dates the name of Mr. Milind Gokhale was shown as the learned companynsel for the appellants whereas in fact Mr. Anil Kumar and Shri Praveen Kumar had filed memo of appearance on 25.10.1993.
However, that information was number put up with the file, fed into the companyputer either, number printed in the cause list.
Rajendra Babu, J. Leave granted.
The appellants were chargesheeted for offences arising under Section 304 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with section 498A, I.P.C. The allegation made in the chargesheet is that one G. Madhavi Latha was married to Manik Prabhu the son of the appellants herein on 8.6.1983 that the deceased Madhavi Latha, the appellants and her husband were living in Hyderabad, that on 27.6.1989 Madhavi Latha is said to have companymitted suicide by setting fire to herself in the presence of her children and she succumbed to the same on 29.6.1989 that the appellants were ill treating the deceased by hurling abuses at her and did number provide proper or timely food as she did number bring enough money towards dowry.
In the trial 20 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and several documents were marked while the defence examined two witnesses and also got several documents marked.
The trial companyrt held that the offences arising under Section 304B I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were number established and acquitted them of the said charges.
However, the trial companyrt companyvicted the appellants for offences arising under Section 498A and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.
