Courts must restore complaints involving public funds dismissed solely for non-appearance and hear them on merits.

The respondent, an excise contractor, participated in the 2015–16 auction of liquor shops in Shajapur district and allegedly had an outstanding liability of ₹30,00,000.

She issued post-dated cheque No. 01736, drawn on Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank, as security for payment of the outstanding amount.

The cheque was presented by the complainant and was dishonoured; a statutory legal notice was thereafter issued, but the respondent neither replied nor made payment.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was instituted.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur dismissed the complaint on 26.08.2022, apparently solely for non-appearance of the complainant.

The complainant’s revision was dismissed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur on 11.09.2023.

The State preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking restoration of the complaint for adjudication on merits.

Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be dismissed solely on account of the complainant’s non-appearance, without adjudication on merits, particularly where the complaint was supported by documentary evidence?

Whether the COVID-19 lockdown, administrative disruption, and the fact that the dispute involved alleged government funds constituted sufficient justification for restoring the dismissed complaint?

Whether the concurrent orders of the Trial Court and Revisional Court were liable to be set aside and the complaint restored subject to costs?

The Court applied Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which enables an appeal against an acquittal or dismissal in the circumstances contemplated by the provision, and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning criminal liability for dishonour of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt or liability.

The Court further applied the principle that procedural defaults, including non-appearance of the complainant or prosecuting counsel, should not ordinarily result in the irreversible termination of proceedings where the complaint discloses a triable case, supporting documents are on record, and sufficient cause for the default is shown.

The Court also relied on the broader principle that courts should avoid hyper-technical procedural approaches that may cause miscarriage of justice, particularly where public money is allegedly involved.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the subordinate courts had addressed only the complainant’s absence and had not examined the underlying dishonour claim on its merits.

The complaint was supported by documentary material concerning the cheque, the outstanding amount, its dishonour, and issuance of the legal notice.

The Court accepted the explanation that the absence of the Government Advocate resulted from administrative difficulties and systemic disruption during the COVID-19 lockdown and its subsequent wave, rather than deliberate inaction.

Since the alleged liability involved ₹30,00,000 of government money and the dismissal was also made without issuing notice to the non-applicant, the Court held that dismissal in default adopted an impermissibly hyper-technical approach and denied the complainant an opportunity to establish its case on merits.

Nevertheless, recognising the procedural lapse and resulting delay, the Court considered it appropriate to impose costs as a condition of restoration.

The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was remanded for hearing and decision on merits, subject to payment of costs of ₹5,000.