A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.— The petitioners and respondent 2/accused, were charged for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the Act’ for short), on a complaint filed by the respondent 1, in C.C. No. 20138 of 1997, by the learned XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City. After trial, learned Magistrate, by a Judgment dated 17.6.2003, convicted the petitioners and respondent 2, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs. 70,00,000 and, in default, accused 2 and 3/petitioners herein, were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Out of the recovered fine amount, Rs. 69,75,000 was ordered to be paid to the complainant/respondent 1 herein, as compensation.

2. Accused 2 and 3 filed Crl. A. No. 381 of 2003, in the City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore City. The appeal was assigned to the Fast Track Court-Il, Bangalore City. Learned Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, by a judgment dated 13.10.2006, allowed the appeal in part. The conviction of the accused was confirmed. However, the fine amount was reduced to Rs. 65,50,000. The fine amount, if not paid, accused 1 and 2 were directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months. If, fine amount of Rs. 65,50,000 is recovered, the same was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant.

3. Sri S. G. Bhagavan, learned Advocate, firstly, contended that the Appellate Court has conducted itself injudiciously, since, it has not even gone into the aspects of the matter argued before it, particularly, with regard to: (i) the maintainability of the complaint; (ii) authority to institute the complaint; and (iii) Ex. P22 Account Extract, being in loose sheets. He submitted that, not even a reference has been made to the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, copies of which were furnished and reliance was placed during the course of arguments. He further submitted that the appeal has been ‘disposed off, without ‘deciding it’ in the manner known to law, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Secondly, the Judgment of the Appellate Court is vitiated, since, on 4.8.2006, arguments of the appellants were heard and the absence of the learned Advocate for the 1st respondent was noted and the appeal was posted to 18.8.2006, for pronouncement of judgment. The judgment being not ready, the appeal was adjourned to 31.8.2006. An application, copy of which was not served on the Advocate for the appellants, having been filed in the appeal by the 1st respondent on 28.8.2006 i.e., seeking proponement of the case, the appeal has been preponed without notice to the appellant and posted to 31.8.2006 and the matter having been adjourned thereafter on few occasions, by wrongly showing the Advocate for the appellants as having been heard, the impugned Judgment, which is perverse and illegal, has been passed. Thirdly, without considering the matter in accordance with law and without assigning reasons, the finding of guilt erroneously recorded was upheld and modified sentence imposed, which are against the law, the facts and probabilities of the case.

4. On the other hand, Sri T. Suryanarayana learned Advocate, appearing for the 1st respondent, supported the impugned judgments and contended that the Appellate Court has applied its mind in regard to the record of the case, before confirming the conviction.

5. The point for consideration is:

Whether the proceedings in the appeal and the judgment passed by the Appellate Court are vitiated?

6. The order sheet of Cri. A. No. 381 of 2003, dated 4.8.2006 shows that, Advocate for appellants addressed the arguments. Left hand side column shows that the learned Presiding Officer has made a note of the contentions urged and also the decisions, on which reliance was placed. Absence of Advocate for respondent has been recorded. The case was posted for judgment by 18.8.2006. Finding that, appeal memo was not ava