RAJESH KUMAR Vs. UGRASEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to challenge order dated 20.01.2018, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Gagnanagar (for short, 'learned appellate Court') , whereby the learned appellate Court has dismissed his appeal in default and for want of prosecution against verdict dated 29.07.2016, passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court) .

(2.) Bare necessary facts for the purpose of this revision petition are that respondent-complainant filed a complaint against petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner took a loan from him worth Rs. 8,50, 000/- and while discharging his aforesaid liability, he gave him cheque of the aforesaid amount. It is further averred in the complaint that when the said cheque was presented before Bank, same was dishonored with the report that account has already closed. The learned trial Court upon conclusion of trial found the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 138 of the Act and handed down sentence of one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10 lacs. Being aggrieved by the judgment of learned trial Court, petitioner preferred an appeal before learned appellate Court. Learned appellate Court at the threshold suspended the sentence. When appeal came up for hearing on 20.01.2018 neither the petitioner, nor his counsel were present, and therefore, the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal in default and for want of prosecution.

(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned appellate Court has committed grave and serious error in dismissing the appeal in default and for non-prosecution without examining the merits of case. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by learned appellate Court be set at naught and the matter be remanded back to the learned appellate Court for deciding appeal afresh on merits. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Bani Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720.