P. SELVARAJ Vs. P.M. PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Criminal Revision Cases have been filed by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgments dated 05.11.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in Crl.A.Nos. 54 and 53 of 2014, confirming the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode, in S.T.C. Nos. 294 and 273 of 2012, dated 26.06.2014. The said Appeals were filed against the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Tiruchengode, in S.T.C. Nos. 294 and 273 of 2012, dated 26.06.2014, whereby, the petitioner/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months in each case and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/ - and Rs. 1,14,000/ - respectively to the complainant.

(2.) TODAY , when these matters are taken up, Mr.S.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the petitioner/accused due to some unavoidable circumstances could not appear before the Appellate Court, however, the counsel appearing on his behalf appeared before the Appellate Court and represented the case, but, the Appellate Court on finding that the appellant had not appeared before the Court even once after filing the appeals has dismissed the appeals, without going into the merits of the case. He would rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in : (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 721, K.S. Panduranga Vs State of Karnataka, to substantiate his contention that the dismissal of the criminal case can be only decided on merits in the absence of the appellant and the Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non -prosecution simpliciter without examining on merits. Relying on the said decision, learned counsel would contend that the judgments passed by the Appellate Court dismissing the appeals without going into the merits of the case is per se illegal and it is not in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He would further add that the accused is willing to get on with the cases immediately.

(3.) ON a perusal of the judgments of the Appellate Court, it is seen that the petitioner/accused did not appear before the Appellate Court on 03.09.2014, however, the counsel appearing on his behalf appeared before the Appellate Court and represented the case, but, the Appellate Court on finding that the appellant had not appeared before the Court even once after filing the appeals has dismissed the appeals, without going into the merits of the case. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in : (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 721, K.S. Panduranga Vs State of Karnataka, wherein, it is held in paragraph No. 19 as follows: -