BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ CRL.R.C.(MD)No.751 of 2019 Raghu Chandra Kumar ... Petitioner vs.

The Sate of Tamil Nadu, Represented by, The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Palani, Dindigul District, Crime No.01 of 2013 ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records and set aside the judgment passed by Additional District and Sessions Court, Palani in C.A.No.17 of 2018, dated 14.02.2019, confirming the conviction judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate, Palani in C.C.No.166 of 2013, dated 19.02.2018.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan For Respondent : Mr.M.Karuppusamy Government Advocate

O R D E R

Heard Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan, learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Karuppusamy, learned Government Advocate for Respondent.

2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the Judgment dated 14.02.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Court, Palani in C.A.No.17 of 2018, whereby the Additional District and Sessions Court had confirmed the order of conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate, Palani in C.C.No.166 of 2013, dated 19.02.2018.

3. The short ground of challenge is that the impugned judgment came to be passed after finding that Petitioner has not been represented by any Advocate.

4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner would submit that once the Appellate Court finds that the advocate representing the accused is not available, the only course open to it is to appoint an Amicus Curiae to represent the accused, and it could not have decided the matter in the absence of representation.

5. Learned Counsel for Petitioner would further submit that the Lower Appellate Court decided the matter treating the accused as unrepresented, is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. In this regard, he places reliance on the case of Subedar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2020) 17 SCC 765, wherein it was held as under:

“7. One of the submissions urged on behalf of the appellant is that the appeal was disposed of in absence of any representation on behalf of the appellant.

8. It is well accepted that right of being represented through a counsel is part of due process clause and is referable to the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

9. In case the Advocate representing the cause of the accused, for one reason or the other was not available, it was open to the Court to appoint an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court but the cause in any case ought not to be allowed to go unrepresented.

10. In the circumstances, we have no other alternative but to set-aside the judgment passed by the High Court and to restore Criminal Appeal No.2798 of 1988 to the file of the High Court to be disposed of afresh.

11. The record indicates that the appellant was on bail while the appeal was pending in the High Court and has since then been taken in custody.

12. In the circumstances, we request the High Court to consider taking up Criminal Appeal No.2798 of 1988 for hearing at an early date and in order to facilitate the exercise, we direct the Registry of the High Court to list the appeal before the appropriate Court on 11.01.2021 for directions.

13. The appellant shall appear through Advocate(s) on

11.01.2021 and said Advocate(s) shall continue to represent the cause of the accused and in case there is any default on the part of the Advocate(s), the High Court may consider appointing an Amicus Curiae in the matter to assist the Court.”

6. In view thereof, the impugned judgment passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Palani in C.A. No. 17 of 2018 dated 14.02.2019, confirming the judgment of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Palani in C.C. No. 166 of 2013 dated 19.02.2018, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to Additional District and Sessions Court, Palani, for fresh consideration. The Additional Distri