S R JAYASHANKAR Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case, the Trial Court convicted the petitioners - accused, in a case related to the dishonour of a cheque under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioners - accused were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 6,10,000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for a period of one year. The complainant was held entitled for compensation of Rs. 6,05,000/-, in case of payment of fine by the accused. In appeal filed by the accused, the said finding was confirmed. Assailing the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as affirmed in the appeal, the accused have filed this criminal revision petition. Sri S. Subramanya, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the learned appellate Judge has erred in law in taking the arguments as heard on 21.04.2010, though he has noted in the Order Sheet, as to the absence of both the parties before the Court. He submitted that the appellants were not provided with reasonable opportunity to address the arguments on merits of the case. By placing reliance on the decision in the case of MD. SUKUR ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM, 2011 AIR(SC) 1222 he submitted that, criminal case cannot be decided against the accused in the absence of counsel. He further submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice, interference with the impugned Judgment of the Appellate Court is warranted.

(2.) Sri M.V. Manjunatha, learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that the absence of the appellants and their learned advocate on 21.04.2010 was deliberate and hence, the learned Appellate Judge was justified in perusing the record of the case and in deciding the appeal on its merit. Learned counsel sought dismissal of the petition.

(3.) Perused the record of the case. In the light of the rival contentions, the short point for consideration is;