The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's failure to provide evidence to support his claim regarding the issuance of the cheque as security for a loan transaction led to the confirmation of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The case of the respondent/complainant is that the petitioner/accused to discharge the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-borrowed on 01.10.2006 had executed Ex.P.1-Promissory Note and also given a cheque to the complainant, the same returned dishonoured. Thereafter, the accused has given a Letter of Undertaking dated 15.03.2009, undertaking to settle the loan amount on or before 16.04.2009 and for discharge of the loan amount, the accused has issued a post-dated cheque (Ex.P.3) bearing No.533645, dated 20.04.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,48,500/-. When the complainant presented the cheque for collection on 23.04.2009, the same returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice. After receiving the notice also, the accused did not come forward to pay the money and hence, the complaint. The case was taken on file in C.C.No.2209 of 2009 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. After trial, the Trial Court, by order dated 22.05.2012, convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred a Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.108 of 2012. The Appellate Court has modified the judgment by confirming the conviction passed by the Trial Court and the sentence alone is modified directing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-as fine, indefault to undergo six months simple imprisonment and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-as compensation to the complainant, in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment. The petitioner is further directed to deduct the already deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/-out of the compensation amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. Aggrieved against the same, the Criminal Revision Case is filed by the accused.

2.On 22.04.2015, when the matter was taken up, there was no representation for the petitioner and hence, the matter was directed to be posted on 27.04.2015 and again on 01.06.2015, when the matter was called, there was no representation for the petitioner and therefore, the matter was directed to be posted under the caption, “for dismissal” after two weeks. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not present, though, the case is listed today under the caption “for dismissal”, this kind of practice is deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex in the judgment reported in (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 721, K.S.Panduranga vs. State of Karnataka, and has held that the Court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision has culled out certain principles and in paragraph No.19 has held as follows:-

“19. From the aforesaid decision in Bani Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 720, the principles that can be culled out are:

19.1. That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits;

19.2. That the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent;

19.3. That the court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so;

19.4. That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court;

19.5. That if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the appellant-accused if his lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in law would preclude the court from doing so; and

19.6. That if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation.”

In the light of the principl