1 31-APEAL-23-2015 (CR).DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2015 Gajanan Trading …...Appellant VERSUS Balasaheb Vijay Gujar And Anr. …...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ None for the Appellant. None for Respondent No.1. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, APP, for Respondent No.2 - State. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026. P.C. 1. Today, the present Appeal is listed under the caption “For Dismissal”. 2. When the Appeal was called out, the names of the Appellant as well as the Advocate-on-record (Aniket U. Nikam), are called out by the Court Sheristedar, none appears. 3. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned APP, appears for Respondent No.2 – State. 4. On 18th August, 2026, the following order was made. “1. Neither the Appellant nor the Advocate for the Appellant is present when this Appeal is called out. Shantanu S. Dhudum SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date: 2026.08.24 20:32:42 +0530 2 31-APEAL-23-2015 (CR).DOC 2. On 18th July, 2026, the following order was passed before the Lok-Adalat. “1. None for the Appellant. 2. Place the matter before the Regular Court on 18th August, 2026 for orders” 3. To afford an opportunity for the Appellant to appear, list this Appeal on 24th August, 2026, under the caption “For Dismissal”. 5. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned APP, for Respondent No.2 – State, submits that sufficient opportunities have been afforded to the Appellant on 18th July, 2026 and 18th August, 2026. He submits that, despite such opportunities, neither the Appellant nor the learned Advocate for the Appellant is present today. 6. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned APP, for Respondent No.2 – State, states that this matter is today listed under the caption “For Dismissal”. He states that the continued absence of the Appellant and the learned Advocate for the Appellant indicates that the Appellant is not interested in prosecuting the present Appeal. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, learned APP, therefore, insist for dismissal of the Appeal. 7. In view of the above, left with no other option, this appeal is dismissed for non – prosecution. ( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum