Criminal Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed in Absentia Without Appointing Amicus Curiae and Providing Reasoned Findings on Merits.

Two complaints were filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act against the Petitioners for the dishonor of cheques issued against loans totaling several crores

The Trial Court convicted the Petitioners on 08.04.2019, sentencing them to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine/compensation of twice the cheque amount

The Petitioners, who had been declared proclaimed offenders, did not appear before the Appellate Court

On 31.01.2020, the Appellate Court dismissed their appeals in a summary fashion while they were still absconding

The Petitioners were arrested in October 2024 and subsequently filed these revision petitions with a delay of over 2,100 days

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the condonation of delay

It relied on the landmark precedent Bani Singh v. State of U.P., which establishes that a criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution and must be decided on merits after a scrupulous scrutiny of the record

For the requirement of legal representation, it followed K. Muruganandam v. State and Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam, which mandate the appointment of an Amicus Curiae if the accused is unrepresented before the Appellate Court

It further noted the duties of an Appellate Court under Sections 385 and 386 of the Cr.P.C. to deliberate on the evidence

The Court first addressed the delay, observing that the Petitioners provided no plausible explanation for their six-year absence and showed a complete disregard for the Rule of Law by absconding

However, the Court held that a revisional court cannot ignore "apparent illegality"

It scrutinized the Appellate Court’s judgment, finding it "vague, unspecific and non-speaking" because it failed to address any of the 17 grounds of appeal raised

The Court noted that the Appellate Court erred by deciding the matter in absentia without appointing an Amicus Curiae, which is a mandatory procedural safeguard to ensure the interest of an unrepresented party is portrayed before the court

The Court reasoned that while technicalities like limitation are important, they must yield to the principles of natural justice and the statutory right of a fair criminal appeal

The appeals were revived and remanded for re-hearing on merits. This relief was made conditional upon the Petitioners depositing 25% of the fine amount with the Trial Court and paying a cost of ₹5 lakhs to each respondent within 10 days. The Appellate Court was directed to dispose of the revived appeals by 31.08.2026