The Appellate Court must dispose of appeals on merits and not dismiss for default, especially where absence of counsel is involved.

COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Revision Cases are filed to set aside the judgment, dated 29.03.2022 in Crl.A.Nos.28 and 27 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment, dated 24.04.2019 passed in C.C.Nos.136 and 137 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.

2. The brief facts of the case:

The respondent filed the cases in C.C.Nos.136 and 137 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor against the revision petitioners U/s.200 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegation of dishonor of the cheques for Rs.14,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- issued by the respective revision petitioners. The revision petitioners have contested the cases. Both sides adduced oral and documentary evidences. After hearing both sides and after considering the evidences, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor passed the judgment, dated 24.04.2019, convicting the revision petitioners U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay the cheque amounts Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs only) and Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) U/s.357 of Cr.P.C. to the respondent. Challenging the judgment, the respective revision petitioners preferred the appeal in Crl.A.Nos.28 and 27 of 2020 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The first Appellate Court has dismissed both the Criminal Appeals for default on the ground that “No representation, batta not paid”.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of dismissal for default passed by the I Appellate Court, the revision petitioners have preferred these respective Criminal Revision Cases.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records in this Criminal Revision Cases.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has submitted that the revision petitioners are father and son, who have preferred the Criminal Appeals against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The Appellate Court has dismissed both Criminal Appeals for default without considering the merits of the case. The Appellate Court cannot pass an order of dismissal for default. The Appellate Court ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits perusing the records and judgment of the trial Court, but the same has not been done. The Appellate Court has failed to appoint a lawyer, who is practicing on the criminal side as Amicus Curiae and decide the case after hearing both. Therefore, the judgment of the Appellate Court has to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back for fresh consideration by relying on the settled principle of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bani Singh and Others /v/ State of U.P. reported in AIR 1996 SC 2439 and the decision of the Principal Seat of this Court reported in 2020 (1) MWN (Cr.) DCC 26 (Mad.) (A.Subash vs. J.Aranganathan).

6. The learned counsel for the respondent has objected the criminal revision cases. He would further submit that both the revision petitioners have admitted the issuance of cheques and also their signatures. The cheque case was filed in the year 2014 and the trial Court passed the judgment in the year 2019 and the petitioners have filed these criminal revisions with delay petitions to drag on the proceedings in order to evade payment of the cheque amount of Rs.18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen lakhs only). So, the Criminal Revision Cases may be dismissed.

7. On hearing both side rival arguments and on perusal of records, it is clear that the respondent has filed private complaints U/s.200 of Cr.P.C. r/w 138 of the Negotiabl