3
the advocates on record were permitted tcfr’:reti’i*e[‘jfxfdia’ ~
the ease and a netiee was issu_e.d_t0 zzn”
{hat day.
3. It is seen that the Cent: i1o’t,iee Esjeued.
appellant was served on th»e_ apVpe11a’ma per§§.ena_fiy..a§ per=.
the endorsement, offghe ohf’ “Pe.1:iee; Hebbal
Police Station. The in the notice
on 27.07g2OQ8;: wfhicifiw Thereafter,
till today eaade any efforts to
appellant appears ta be
an it is Clear that the
appe11an”t1_s”nv0f”i:i’feree’i’ed in pursuing this appealg
zi;1g;: Sr: S.HC§;B’hagaVan, learned Counsel for the
:*e_::<;j0:§:L£er;tMV"xyh0 is preeent before the Court submits
'shaft he objection if the appeai is re<)pene<:i, in the
Aevem": .{:_:_1';:' the appellant filing an applieatiorx for the same,
bxitxne; purpse WEB be Serveii in keeping the matter
pendixisg’ in the list Herzcre, this appeal is dismissed far
r10r1«proseC.uii0n with 1ib<irty to the appéllani
applicaticm for reopazing if 88 advised.
§[%'ié%»<~'«.«:
nvj
