An appeal against conviction cannot be decided ex parte without ensuring the appellant’s legal representation.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner owed Rs. 8,30,885 for garments supplied on credit and issued a cheque for that amount, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), and imposed a fine of Rs. 9,00,000, with default imprisonment.

The petitioner’s defence was that he operated a travel agency, had given a signed blank cheque to a loan broker, and had no garment-trading relationship with the complainant. He also relied on the complainant’s other proceedings against his brother concerning the same aggregate liability.

The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed on merits in his and his counsel’s absence. He then sought relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code), challenging the ex parte appellate decision and raising concerns about the trial record, the complainant’s proof of debt, and the parallel complaints.

Whether the appellate court could decide the appeal against conviction in the appellant’s absence without providing notice or legal representation.

Whether the illegible trial-court order entry and the disputed opportunity to cross-examine the complainant on recalled evidence rendered the conviction procedurally irregular.

Whether the complainant established a legally enforceable debt without primary business records and authenticated vouchers.

Whether the petitioner rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act on a balance of probabilities.

What effect the complainant’s parallel proceedings concerning the same alleged liability had on the case.

What relief was appropriate in the circumstances.

Section 386 of the Code requires an appellate court to consider the record and hear the appellant or counsel if appearing; an appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed for non-appearance, and the court must ensure meaningful representation before deciding it.

Article 21 protects the right to a fair hearing.

Under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, the statutory presumptions may be rebutted by the accused on a preponderance of probabilities.

Section 138 requires a cheque to relate to a legally enforceable debt or liability.

The judgment also treated cross-examination as an essential fair-trial safeguard under Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court held that the appellate court’s decision to proceed on the merits without administrative notice or appointing legal representation deprived the petitioner of a fair hearing and violated the procedure required for an appeal against conviction.

It also found material uncertainty in the trial record: the entry said to close cross-examination was illegible, and the record did not establish that the complainant had been cross-examined on the documents produced after recall.

On the debt and presumption issues, the Court considered the unacknowledged vouchers, absence of primary accounting records, the petitioner’s travel-agency defence, and the parallel complaints as supporting a probable defence and undermining the complainant’s case.

These merits-related findings informed the directions on remand; the Court’s operative order set aside the appellate judgment and returned the appeal for fresh consideration.

It remanded the appeal for a fresh hearing on the merits, directing the appellate court to address the illegible order entry and cross-examination, the absence of primary business records, and the parallel complaints.

The parties were directed to appear on 25 November 2026, and the appellate court was instructed to appoint legal-aid counsel or an amicus curiae if the petitioner or counsel failed to appear.

Execution of the trial-court sentence was stayed pending disposal of the appeal on remand.