The appellant had numbernotice and, therefore, when the matter was taken up, there was numberrepresentation.
Originally, the appeal was pending before the Patna High Court and on reorganization of States, it was transferred to the Jharkhand High Court.
This position is number disputed by learned companynsel for the respondent State.
The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the first offence and seven years for the second offence and six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the DP Act.
In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal.
To avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the High Court on 10.12.2008 without further numberice.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.
The appeal was directed against the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence passed by the learned second Additional Sessions Judge, Santhal Pargana, Dumka, companyvicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 304 B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in short the DP Act .
