Disposed

Sivarathri Mallikarjuna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Sept 2014CRLRC/1456/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the court examined the legality of dismissing a criminal appeal by the Sessions Court for default due to the appellant's absence and lack of representation. Upholding Section 386 Cr.P.C. and a Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held appeals must be decided on merits. It set aside the dismissal order, quashed the warrant, and restored the appeal to the lower appellate c

What did the court decide?

The dismissal order issuing warrant against the revision petitioner is set aside; the appeal is restored to the lower appellate court for decision on merits after notice to parties or directly on meri

Sivarathri Mallikarjuna Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1456 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C by the petitioner-accused, having been aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.06.2014 in Crl.A.No. 114 of 2013 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, FAC,VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.358 of 2010 dated 06.05.2013 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.

¶4

2. The grounds of revision are that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is illegal, irregular, contrary to weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that both the Courts below mis-read and misinterpreted the facts, law and evidence on record and erroneously recorded a finding of conviction instead of acquittal, that due to fever, he could not attend the Court and he was unable to inform the same to his counsel to represent the matter and the counsel also could not appear before the Court below and as such the appeal was dismissed, that the Apex Court time and again held that the appeals cannot be dismissed for default and even in the absence of appellant, it can be decided on merits, that he has good case to succeed in the appeal, that the learned trial Judge erroneously without appreciation of facts, law and evidence on record recorded a finding of conviction and the appeal also dismissed for default as there was no representation, that there are no wilful laches on the part of the petitioner for his non-appearance and no prosecution of his appeal except bona fide reasons stated above that he was suffering from fever due to which either himself or his counsel could not represent the matter before the Sessions Court, resulting which the appeal was dismissed for no representation and issued warrant against the petitioner, hence he prays to set aside the judgment impugned herein. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the same during the course of

¶5

hearing.

¶6

3. Heard and perused the material on record.

¶7

4. Now the points that arise for consideration are:

¶8

1. Whether the judgment dated 20.06.2014 in Crl.A.No. 114 of 2013 on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, FAC VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Markapur confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.358 of 2010 dated 06.05.2013 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, is unsustainable, if so, with what observations?

¶9

2. To what result?

¶10

Point No.1:

¶11

6. The revision petitioner is the appellant before the lower appellate Court in Crl.A.No.114 of 2013 preferred by the accused before the trial Court in C.C.No.358 of 2010 which is a case based on private Complaint for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the conviction judgment of the trial Court dated 06.05.2013. In Crl.A.No.114 of 2013 the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal with observation as “Appellant called absent. No representation. Appeal is dismissed. Issue Warrant”. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision is preferred by the accused.

¶12

7. In fact, section 386 of Cr.P.C. mandates even for absence of the appellant with no representation even by the advocate, the appellate Court has to decide the appeal on merits and if necessary from any complicated facts, taking assistance of a legal aid counsel to present any of the parties. Thus, dismissal is not the remedy but deciding on merits under Section 386 of Cr.P.C. as also laid down by the three judge Bench [1] of the Apex Court in Apex Court in Beni Singh Vs. State of Utter Prades h . Hence, the acquittal judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside

¶13

and the appeal is to be restored.

¶14

Point No.2:

¶15

8. In the result, the Revision is disposed of. The dismissal order issuing warrant against the revision petitioner-accused by the lower appellate Court in Crl.A.No. 114 of 2013 impugned herein is set aside and the appeal is restored to file of the lower appellate Court with a direction to decide appeal after notice to both parties from submission of any arguments on merits, else by deciding on merits. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision, shall stand closed.

¶16

___________________________

¶17

Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J,

¶18

Date: 09.09.2014. B/o vvr

¶19

[1] 1996 SC 3429

Sivarathri Mallikarjuna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivarathri Mallikarjuna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arcapati Ranga Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

E. Mahendar Goud S/o. Narsimulu Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Yarasani Yesu Ratnam Vs Pothineni Hanumantha Rao

G.R.Janardhanareddy Vs C.Kundanandan Reddy , C.K.N.Reddy

Kaki Nagaraju, Vs The State of Telangana

P.Mallikarjuna Reddy Vs The State of A.P.