Criminal revision petitions cannot be dismissed for default or non-prosecution. Even when parties or counsel are absent, the court is legally obligated to scrutinize the records and decide the matter on its merits via a reasoned order.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.2562 of 2017. The revisionist is before this Court. He was convicted in Complaint Case No.1808 of 2016 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In Criminal Appeal No.158 of 2016, his conviction and sentence were confirmed. Aggrieved by the order passed in the appeal confirming the order of the Trial Court, the appellant herein moved the stated revision petition which ultimately culminated in the order impugned.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh and also the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. We have carefully gone through the impugned order. It would reveal that the learned counsel for the appellant as also the appellant were absent when the matter was taken up for hearing. The order would further reveal that after noting their absence, the Court perused the records and ultimately passed the order impugned. However, the order does not reflect consideration of the case on merits. In other words, it is a non-reasoned order. When an adverse order would affect the personal liberty of a person, the fact that he is a convict cannot be a reason to deprive him of fair treatment in the matter of consideration of his revision petition in the manner prescribed by this Court, as the law laid down by this Court in that regard is binding on all Courts by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

5. In the decision in Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar, (2007) 7 SCC 623 a Two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the rule laid down by this Court that a criminal appeal should not be dismissed for default would also apply to criminal revisions. The reference thus made was to the decision of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Bani Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720. In Bani Singh’s case (supra), this Court held thus: -

“14. …… The plain language of Section 385 makes it clear that if the appellate court does not consider the appeal fit for summary dismissal, it ‘must’ call for the record and Section 386 mandates that after the record is received, the appellate court may dispose of the appeal after hearing the accused or his counsel. Therefore, the plain language of Sections 385-386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter. On the contrary, the Code envisages disposal of the appeal on merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record. The law clearly expects the appellate court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of the trial court in the judgment, but by cross-checking the reasoning with the evidence on record with a view to satisfying itself that the reasoning and findings recorded by the trial court are consistent with the material on record. The law, therefore, does not envisage the dismissal of the appeal for default or non-prosecution but only contemplates disposal on merits after perusal of the record…...”

6. We are in perfect agreement with the view taken by the Two-Judge Bench in Madan Lal Kapoor’s case (supra) and, therefore, even in the absence of a party or his counsel, a revision petition calls for consideration on merits in accordance with the parameters for consideration of a revision petition.

6. We are in perfect agreement with the view taken by the Two-Judge Bench in Madan Lal Kapoor’s case (supra) and, therefore, even in the absence of a party or his counsel, a revision petition calls for consideration on merits in accordance with the parameters for consideration of a revision petition.

8. Needless to say,