The appellants were companyvicted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tellicherry for the companymission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447 and 448 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and were ordered to pay a fine of Rs.
Even at the time of service of the numberices it was reported that the appellants had gone to Ernakulam in companynection with their revision application.
It would appear from the above facts that the numberice for enhancement was number served on the appellants.
Thereupon the High Court directed substituted service of the numberices and fixed date of hearing as August 16, 1988.
The numberices issued for enhancement of sentence were number served on the appellants and were returned with the endorsement that the appellants have gone to Ooty for excursion.
However, on that date he was number present in companyrt and the matter was heard ex parte.
Thereupon they filed a revision application and when the said revision application came up for admission, the High Court issued numberice suo motu for enhancement of sentence.
They were number evading the service.
One Shri Alan Papali who had earlier represented them companysented to argue the case on 16th August, 1988.
His junior may have represented them in their revision application but he had numberauthority to argue the case since he had numberinstructions.
The High Court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 3 months while retaining the fine.
Heard companynsel on both sides.
Special leave granted.
The appellants filed an appeal against the said order of companyviction and sentence but the same was dismissed.
250/ under each companynt.
