IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

137 CRM-M-2505-2026 Date of Decision : 10.02.2026 TARSEM CHAND ALIAS TARSEM CHAND CHAWLA ...Petitioner VERSUS RAJIV ARORA ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Armaan Gagneja, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-3), vide the suspension of sentence initially granted to the petitioner- appellate in CRA No.167 of 2018 titled ‘Tarsem Chand Chawla Vs. Rajiv Arora’ , was revoked on account of his absence.

2. Relevant facts emerging from documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:-

A criminal complaint bearing NACT No.92 of 2015 titled “Rajiv Arora Vs. Tarsem Chand Chawla” was filed against present petitioner alleging therein that cheques issued by him in discharge of his legally enforceable debt, when presented before the Bank were returned with remarks “funds insufficient”. After the statutory formalities were complied with by complainant – Rajiv Arora, the aforesaid complaint was filed. Both the parties lead their respective evidence. In terms of judgment dated 12.06.2018, petitioner was convicted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib in the following terms:-

3. Aggrieved of the same, appeal bearing CRA No.167 of 2018 was filed by petitioner-appellant, in which his sentence was suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

Plea of the petitioner is that he had been regularly appearing before the learned Appellate Court. On 26.08.2025 an application seeking his exemption from appearance was moved, which was allowed and the case was adjourned to 26.11.2025. Due to sheer inadvertence, the appellant could not appear before the learned First Appellate Court. On account of his absence, the impugned order was passed, which reads as under:-

“Case called several times, but none has appeared on behalf of appellant. Today, the case is fixed for arguments. The appellant has absented from proceedings on last date of hearing. It seems that the appellant is trying to delay the disposal of the present appeal and the appeal is already more than 7 years old. As such, the order vide which the sentence of appellant has been suspended by learned Predecessor stands revoked. Intimation be sent to the learned trial Court to proceed against the appellant/accused in accordance with law to make him serve the sentence passed in the present case. Since it is settled law that appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution and has to be decided on merits, as such, Sh. Amrik Singh Rattniya, Advocate is appointed as amicus curaie to assist the Court on pro bono basis for disposal of the present appeal. To come up on arguments in the absence of appellant, for 03.01.2026.”

4. Learned counsel contends that the absence of the petitioner was not intentional but was on account of a genuine mistake operating in his mind with regard to the next date of hearing. Learned First Appellate Court, instead of issuing notice, hastily revoked the order of suspension of sentence. Continuing further, learned counsel contends that directing the accused-appellant to appear on each and every date of hearing was a very harsh condition imposed by the learned Appellate Court.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel has referred to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court where in case titled as “Meenakshi Vs. State of Haryana and another” Criminal Appeal No.298 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.19050 of 2025 decided on 07.01.2026, it has been held that directions issued to the accused to appear on each and every date of hearing before the Appellate and Revisional Court particularly after the order of suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been passed, is burden