Prithvi Nath Sharma v. Sat Parkash
!"!
#$ % &'()
*$
+, *-.
- * -
!!!
* - ) /,0$ ## $ %
&$
'( ') *'+, % Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram in criminal complaint No. 1860 of 2014 titled as 'Sat Parkash Vs. Prithvi Nath Sharma' filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') whereby the present petitioner had been held guilty and convicted as well as to the judgment dated 19.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram thereby affirming the judgment of learned trial Court. 2.
- #
# %
# ## $ # # .
''
'''/0 $ *'+1 "
$ # %#
2 %
3#% 2 #4 %
%
3
5 6
#
2
# %
#
7 # # 3 *+ ', *'+8 3 $ 9
+1: 3 '1 ++ *'+8 # 3 ##
# #
0 3
1+1 ; ;
%& $# #
% <
= 3
7 $ 3 ## % > # $ # $#
%#
+1:
3 $ #
# # ,'
''
'''/0 0 #
.
?
#$ $$ #
#% ; # #
>$
@$
%
% 2 #
% 9% #3 ## 9 3 # #
/ % ') +* *'+) &$
+) +* *'*1 #3
(
%
$ %
# ## $$ &$
# $ 3 ## ## ;
; #
>$
3
# % 3 $
# = 3 &$
A
## ; < $ ## ; # $ % # 3 ## # $ #3 # %# <% $ %
## ;% $ # # $ % 0
B +1 ':
*'+) % #3 ## %3
# #$3
# %
$ =
#
< $ # # $ #% ## ;3 # $
C % % $ $ &$
## ;# %# %
%
,
# 2 2 3 # # # $ &$
#% 3 $
% # 3 ## A # #
$
# 'K. Muruganandam and Others. V. State rep. By the Deputy Superintendent of Police and another', wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that if in an appeal filed against the judgment of conviction, the accused-appellant does not appear himself or through counsel appointed by him, the Court is obliged to proceed with the $ # $ %
% 0 % # #%
#
$
# !
"#$%& ''
(") *+ ', +):( # 96%#
; % ## $ %
# $ ## ; $ # $ % # ## # proposition of law was laid down by the Apex Court in 'Kishan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996(9) SCC 372' and (*"$ '"
& ''
+''$
", -!).
.'
1 8.
In the instant case, it has been noticed that the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the judgment of his conviction as passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram. He had mostly been moving applications for seeking exemption from appearance. On 13.08.2019 also similar application had been moved which was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Consequently, his bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State. Non-bailable warrants were issued against him and since his presence could not be secured even thereafter, therefore, proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against him and he was declared an absconder on 09.12.2019. The said order was passed in the presence of his counsel and then the case was adjourned to 18.02.2020.
However, thereafter, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared before the learned Appellate Court and ultimately, after hearing learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, learned Additional Sessions Judge i.e. Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. In view of ratio of law as laid down in the above discussed case, which has also been reiterated by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur by order dated 16.08.
# 2(0 .1.& 2"
''
3$"4$
", 9$; - $ % - Fazal Khalil Ahemad Shaikh Vs. Nandkishor Ramnivasji Agrawal, 2020 (4) Bom.C.R(Cri.) 219', I am of the considered opinion that the Appellate Court could not dismiss the appeal without hearing the appellant or his counsel or without appointing an amicus
3 curiae. Since that course had not been adopted by it, therefore, the impugned judgment is certainl %# # %# %
$#
## ;3 #$ # $
# / $
$$ %#
< # # %
# % ; ##% %& % ## ;% *, ':
*'*8 # $ % # 3 ##% ## # 3 < % #;% = ##%
%
)
%
##3 $ #
4* - 5
% &'()