Criminal appeals cannot be dismissed on merits without ensuring legal representation, via counsel or an amicus curiae, as this violates natural justice. Furthermore, revision petitions are not maintainable where a specific statutory appellate remedy is available to an aggrieved party under the law.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Sections 138 and 143 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 372, 374, 376, 378, 401(4), and 482 - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 53 - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction and sentence - Appeal against inadequacy of compensation - Principles of natural justice and fair hearing in criminal appeals.

(B) Appellate Procedure - Dismissal of appeal on merits in absence of appellant or legal counsel - A criminal appeal cannot be disposed of on merits simply due to non-representation of the appellant - Court is obligated to proceed only after appointing an amicus curiae to uphold the principle of audi alteram partem - Failure to provide such opportunity constitutes a violation of natural justice and renders the order invalid. (Paras 22)

(C) Revisional Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Proviso to Section 372 of the Code grants a victim a specific statutory right of appeal against acquittal or inadequate compensation - Where a statutory appellate remedy exists, a revision application under Section 401 cannot be entertained at the instance of a party eligible to prefer such an appeal - Revisional jurisdiction is limited and should not be used as a substitute for a provided appellate remedy. (Paras 19, 21)

Facts of the case:
Separate revisional applications were filed, one by a claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in a cheque dishonour case, and another by the convict challenging the dismissal of their conviction appeal by the appellate court. The appellate court had dismissed the conviction appeal on merits despite the absence of the appellant and their legal representation.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the appellate court acted against the principles of natural justice by deciding the appeal on merits without the presence of the appellant or their counsel. It further clarified that claimants have a clear statutory right of appeal against inadequate compensation under the code, rendering their revision petition not maintainable.

Issues: Whether an appellate court is justified in dismissing a criminal appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant or their counsel, and whether a revision petition is maintainable for a victim when a statutory appellate remedy is available.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a fair hearing and legal representation is fundamental to criminal jurisprudence. Consequently, ex-parte disposal of a criminal appeal violates constitutional guarantees. Furthermore, the court held that courts must relegate parties to the specific statutory appellate remedies provided by law rather than entertaining revisions when an appeal is available.

Result: The appeal was remanded for fresh disposal after providing an opportunity of hearing, and the revision application for enhancement of compensation was dismissed as not maintainable.

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. Both the applications have taken up together for disposal for the sake of convenience and passing a common Judgment as the facts, issues and impugned judgment and order under challenged are similar in both the Revisional applications.

2. CRR No. 2782 of 2018 has been filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the complainant/Petitioner, Sri Prasanna Kumar Nahata for enhancement of the sentence and compensation amount awarded by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta dated 04.08.2018 in connection with Case No. CS-0053954 of 2016 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. The another Revisional application being CRR 3491 of 2019 has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short CrPC) by the petitioner/convict assailing the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – II, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2019 preferred by the Appellant/convict against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 4th August, 2018 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta in connection with Case No. CS-0053954 of 2016 initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 thereby the Learned Trial Court convicted the accused Abhishek Dhanania.

4. By the said judgment dated 19.09.2019, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – II, Calcutta dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction of trial court.

5. The brief facts of this case are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case as follows: -

5a. The complainant/petitioner Prasanna Kumar Nahata initiated a proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the accused being CS Case No. 0053954 of 2016. After considering oral and documentary evidences of the witnesses, the Learned Trial Court finally came to its logical conclusion and convicted the opposite party no. 2 and thereby ordered to pay fine – cum- compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) only to the complainant/petitioner within 30 days from the date of order, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.

5b. In the said proceeding, the complainant, inter alia, alleged as follows: -

a) That the complainant and accused were known to each other and in the 3rd week of February, 2012, the petitioner/accused herein requested the complainant/opposite party to provide a temporary accommodation commercials loan for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) only to the petitioner.

b) That complainant/opposite party advanced a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) only to the petitioner on 20.02.2015, payable on demand along with interest @ 12% p.a. The petitioner had paid interest from time to time at the interval of 3-4 months. On 06.02.2015, the petitioner has lastly paid interests upto 26.11.2015 by NEFT in respect of the above sum of Rs. 15, 00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) only.

c) That the petitioner to pay his existing liabilities and lawful dues, issued an account payee cheque being Cheque no. 000015 dated 01.10.2015 for Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs) only, drawn on HDFC Bank, Dr. U.N. Brahmachari Street branch, Kolkata – 700017, in favour of the complainant.

d) That when the complainant deposited the said cheque with its banker, Canara Bank, Canning Street Branch, Kolkata – 700001, on 19.12.2015, for encashment within the stipulated period but the said cheque was returned unpaid on 21.12.2015 with the remark “fund insufficient”.

e) On 31.12.2015, the complainant/opposite party’s lawyer under the instruction of the complainant sent a demand notice dated 31.12.2015, in terms of section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and called upon the accused persons to pay the amount of the dishonoured cheque but failed to pay the same accordingly, Petitioner initiated the proceeding unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 8895

Criminal appeals cannot be dismissed on merits without ensuring legal representation, via counsel or an amicus curiae, as this violates natural justice. Furthermore, revision petitions are not maintainable where a specific statutory appellate remedy is available to an aggrieved party under the law.

Cases Referred (5)