An appellate court must adjudicate an appeal on its merits even if the appellant fails to appear, following established legal principles.

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the judgment, dated 27.02.2024 in Crl.A.No.94 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Theni and allow the Criminal Revision Case.

2.The brief facts of the case:

The respondent filed a case in S.T.C.No.40 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (FTC), Uthamapalayam against the revision petitioner under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegation of dishonor of the cheque No.331083, dated 23.08.2021 for Rs.5,00,000/-, which was issued by the revision petitioner towards loan obtained by him from the respondent. The revision petitioner contested the case. Both sides adduced oral and documentary evidences. On the respondent's side, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 were marked. On the revision petitioner's side, D.W.1 to D.W.5 were examined and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 were marked.

3. After hearing both sides and after considering the evidences, the learned Judicial Magistrate (FTC), Uthamapalayam passed the judgment dated 11.10.2022 convicting the revision petitioner U/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded sentence of six months simple imprisonment and directed to pay compensation of cheque amount Rs.5,00,000/- U/s.357 (3) of Cr.P.C. to the respondent.

4. Challenging the judgment of the trial Court, the revision petitioner has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.94 of 2022 before the Additional District Court (FTC), Theni. The Appellate Court has dismissed the criminal appeal on the ground that the appellant was absent and there was no representation on her side. Being aggrieved by the judgment of dismissal for default passed by the Appellate Court, the revision petitioner has moved this Court by preferring the present criminal revision case.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records in this Criminal Revision Case.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that the revision petitioner’s husband namely Suvaneshbairavan got loan from one Srinithya and Muthukumar and issued three cheques including the cheque No.331083 in question to them. The revision petitioner’s husband settled the loan, but the said persons denied to return the cheque, hence, he lodged a police complaint and the same was challenged in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.2530 and 3416 of 2022 before this Court. Pending these cases, the respondent filed the cheque case by misusing the cheque in question. The revision petitioner let oral and documentary evidence. But, the Appellate Court simply dismissed the appeal as the appellant was absent and also there was no representation on her side. The Appellate Court cannot pass such order of dismissal, without on merits. The appellate Court ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits by perusing the records and judgment of the trial Court, but the same was not 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 sides. Therefore, the judgment of the Appellate Court has to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back for fresh consideration. The learned counsel has relied on the following citations:

''1) (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 721 ( K.S.Panduranga /v/ State of Karnataka )

2) Order dated 08.07.2020 passed in Crl.Appeal No.474 of 2020 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3) Order dated 04.10.2024 passed by this Court

7. The learned counsel for the respondent has objected the criminal revision case. He would further submit that the Appellate Court has given several opport