w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Sri Shikara Constructions & Another v/s C. Shyamala & Another

    Criminal Revision Case No. 387 of 2020

    Decided On, 10 August 2020

    At, High Court of for the State of Telangana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

    For the Appearing Parties: S. Lokeshwar Reddy, Advocate.



Judgment Text

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. questioning the order, dated 28.01.2020 passed in Crl.A.No.975 of 2014 on the file of the V-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

2. The facts in issue are that the revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in C.C.No.472 of 2012 on the file of the XV Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioners preferred Crl.A.No.975 of 2014 before the V-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. By it's order, dated 28.01.2020, the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution by confirming the judgment of the trial Court and issued Non-bailable Warrant against the revision petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

3. Though notice sent to the 1st respondent was served but none appears on her behalf. Hence, heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent-State.

4. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners mainly submit that the Apex Court time and again held that when the appellant and his counsel are absent, the appellate Court has to go through the records and pass the judgment on merits in case of conviction. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the order, dated 28.01.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.975 of 2014.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that as the revision petitioners are not turning up since long time, the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal, but however conceded to the fact that the appeal has to be disposed of on merits.

6. In K.S.Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721 and Sakunthala v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No.474 of 2020), the Apex Court held that "an appeal against an order of conviction cannot be dismissed in default and it must be taken up and decided on merits even if the appellant in-person or the Counsel representing him, is not present".

7. In the instant case also, a perusal of the impugned order would show that the appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal is pertaining to the year 2014 and accused/appellant is not turning up since long time and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

8. In view of the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the judgment and order, dated 28.01.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.975 of 2014 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside and the said Criminal Appeal is restored to its file. However, since the appeal is of the year 2014, the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, is directed to dispose of the said appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receip

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t of a copy of this order. The revision petitioners are also directed to appear before the appellate Court and shall co-operate for disposal of the appeal, without taking un-necessary adjournments. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed at the admission stage. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
O R