Kerala High Court Sets Aside One-Line Dismissal Of Cheque Dishonour Appeal, Calls It 'Shocking'

On 17 June, the Kerala High Court set aside an appellate court order that had dismissed a cheque dishonour appeal for default, holding that courts cannot dispose of criminal appeals against conviction mechanically merely because the appellant or counsel remains absent.

Justice A. Badharudeen held that an appellate court must independently re-appreciate the evidence and pass a reasoned judgment while deciding an appeal against conviction and sentence. He held:

“…a judgment in a criminal case, when challenged in an appeal, particularly when the same is one challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused, it is the duty of the Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits, after re-appreciating the evidence and enter into a conclusion”

The case arose from a complaint filed by Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance (P) Ltd against Sumi Prasad under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after two cheques for Rs.30,000 and Rs.40,000 issued by her were dishonoured. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court convicted her and imposed fines equivalent to the cheque amounts, directing payment of compensation to the complainant.

The accused challenged the conviction before the Additional Sessions Court. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal after noting the absence of the appellant and recording that her counsel had submitted “no instruction”. The accused then approached the High Court in revision.

The Court examined the appellate order and held that the manner in which the Additional Sessions Court dismissed the appeal “...appears to be shocking.”

The Bench further held that even where the appellant and counsel remain absent, the appellate court may appoint a State Brief to argue the matter. Alternatively, if it proceeds in their absence, it must formulate points for consideration, re-appreciate the evidence, and pass a reasoned order. It observed:

“In this regard, the learned Additional Sessions Judge lost sight of the legal principles and the same is quite unfortunate.”

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the matter to the Additional Sessions Court for fresh consideration, directing it to hear the appellant's counsel or appoint a State Brief and dispose of the appeal on merits within four weeks.

For Petitioner: Advocates Aswin P Kumar, M.C Suresh and Saira Souraj P

For Respondents: Advocates Rajesh Chakyat and Vipin Narayan A, Sr PP