In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the Karnataka High Court’s decision to dismiss a criminal revision petition in a cheque bounce case, without granting the convicted man’s lawyer an opportunity to present his argument. The case highlights concerns over the procedural fairness in handling criminal appeals.
The petitioner, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, had challenged the trial court’s decision in a revision petition before the Karnataka High Court. However, when the matter was taken up in 2019, his lawyer was absent. Instead of adjourning the hearing or appointing a legal aid lawyer, the High Court proceeded to reject the petition on its merits.
The Supreme Court, led by Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, stated that while the High Court holds the authority to rule on revision petitions even in the absence of counsel, such a course of action should not be standard practice, especially when dealing with a criminal conviction. “A fair opportunity must be provided for the accused to present their case,” the bench emphasized.
Noting that the absence of the appellant’s lawyer was not a repeated occurrence, the Court pointed out that the High Court had other options—such as granting time or appointing a legal aid lawyer—but chose not to exercise them. In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and ordered a fresh hearing of the revision petition, ensuring the appellant would be given a fair opportunity to be heard.