IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2896 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

SRI SUNIL U., S/O UMAPATHI S. N., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT C/O PREM PHOTO COPY

3^RD MAIN, MATHRUSHRI BEHIND K.V.V.SCHOOL VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU – 560 040.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI HARISH T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally LAKSHMINARAYANA V., signed by SANJEEVINI J S/O VENKATACHALAIAH KARISHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS Location: High Court of R/AT NO.2240/29, 3^RD CROSS Karnataka KODANDARAMA BADAVANE CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 160.

…RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF 1^ST ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE RAMANAGARA IN CRL.APL.NO.37/2023. EXAMINE THE LEGALITY AND CORRECTNESS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/01/2026 (ANNEXURE-A).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner – sole accused is before this Court calling in question an order dated 20.01.2026, passed by the 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, in Crl.A.No.37/2023, whereby, the appeal comes to be dismissed for its non-prosecution.

2. The petitioner gets convicted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On the conviction, the petitioner prefers an appeal before the Court of Sessions in Crl.A.No.37/2023. Owing to the absence of the petitioner – accused, the appeal comes to be dismissed for its non-prosecution. It is that order that is called in question before this Court in the subject petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal could not be dismissed for its non-prosecution, which ought to have heard on its merits.

4. The submission merits acceptance as it is a settled principle of law that an appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution. The Apex Court in the case of DHANANJAY RAI v. STATE OF BIHAR reported in (2022)

14 SCC 95 has held as follows:

“6. In the impugned judgment [Dhananjay Rai v. State of Bihar, 2015 SCC OnLine Pat 6996] , the Division Bench of the Patna High Court has itself recorded that it is deviating from the settled position of law. Such an approach cannot be countenanced. The well-settled law can be found in the decision of this Court of a Bench consisting of three Hon'ble Judges in Bani Singh v. State of U.P. [Bani Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 848] The issue before this Court in the said case was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing an appeal against conviction for non-prosecution. This Court noted the conflict in the views expressed by two coordinate Benches of this Court in Shyam Deo [Shyam Deo Pandey v. State of Bihar, (1971) 1 SCC 855 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 353] and Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of Bihar [Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2014) 14 SCC 238 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 327] . Paras 13 to 15 of the said decision are relevant, which read thus : (Bani Singh case [Bani Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC

720 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 848] , SCC pp. 725-27)

“13. What then is the area of conflict between the two decisions of this Court? In Shyam Deo case [Shyam Deo Pandey v. State of Bihar, (1971) 1 SCC 855 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 353] , this Court ruled that once the appellate court has admitted the appeal to be heard on merits, it cannot dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution for non-appearance of the appellant or his counsel, but must dispose of the appeal on merits after examining the record of the case. It next held that if the appellant or his counsel is absent, the appellate court is not bound to adjourn the appeal but it can dispose it of on merits after perusing the record. In Ram Naresh Yadav case [Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2014) 14 SCC 238 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 327] , the Court did not analyse the relevant provisions of the Code nor did it notice the view taken in Shyam Deo case [