1. The jail appeal filed by Lachhman Chamar was dismissed summarily on 3rd February 1934, by the learned Sessions Judge. Another petition of appeal was filed on his behalf through counsel and this was transferred to the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, When the appeal filed by counsel came up for hearing before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, he was apprised of the summary rejection of the jail appeal by the Sessions Judge on 3rd February 1934. The proviso to Section 421, Criminal P.C. says that no appeal is to be dismissed unless the appellant or his pleader has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in Court. In the present case the appeal which was dismissed was filed from jail under Section 420, and the proviso to Section 421, Criminal P.C., does not strictly apply to such an appeal. But another appeal was filed by learned Counsel and to this appeal the proviso applies.
2. The dismissal of the jail appeal must be deemed to be a provisional dismissal in no way affecting the right of the appellant to have his counsel heard under the proviso to Section 421, Criminal P.C., in connexion with the appeal filed under Section 419, Criminal P.C. The practice in the High Court is that a summary dismissal of a jail appeal by a learned Judge does not in any way debar the hearing of an appeal filed by counsel. Indeed, the fixing of the seal is delayed till the period of limitation is over. I am therefore of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should hear the appeal of Lachhman Chamar filed through counsel. I therefore accept the recommendation of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge rejecting the jail appeal on 3rd February 1934, and direct the Second Additional Sessions Judge or his successor to hear the appeal presented through counsel.