The Supreme Court recently criticized the Karnataka High Court for dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by a man convicted in a cheque bounce case, without hearing his lawyer [Ganesh Shetti v. Rajan Chaudhray]..The Bench of Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan explained that although a High Court has powers to decide on revision petitions in the absence of lawyers, such a course of action should not be routinely adopted, particularly if the revision plea has questioned the correctness of a criminal conviction. "Though the High Court had a power to decide a Revision Petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in absence of the advocate for the revision petitioner, normally, the High Court should avoid adopting the said course when the order under challenge is the order of conviction," the top court said. .The case concerned a man (appellant) who was convicted under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. His conviction by a trial court was upheld by a sessions court before he filed a revision petition before the Karnataka High Court to question the correctness of his conviction.However, his lawyer was absent when the matter was taken up by the High Court on October 17, 2019. The High Court proceeded to dismiss the revision petition on merits instead of granting him time or appointing a legal aid lawyer."The petitioner/accused remained absent. However, revision petition cannot be dismissed for default and it has to be heard and decided on merits. The same is disposed of on merits," the High Court reasoned. This was challenged by the appellant/ revision petitioner before the Supreme Court in 2021. .On February 4 this year, the top court granted the appellant relief after observing that he should have been given a fair chance by the High Court to present his case. "It is not a case that the appellant was repeatedly absent which prevented the High Court from taking up the Criminal Revision Petition for hearing ... The High Court ought have given a reasonable opportunity to enable the appellant to procure presence of his Advocate. The High Court could always appoint a legal aid lawyer to espouse the cause of the appellant. However, that was not done," the Bench observed.The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the High Court’s order and restored the revision petition. The High Court was directed to hear the revision petition afresh..Advocates Shivam Singh, Amit Bhate, Sunil Kumar Sethi, Kailas Bajirao Autade and Shubham Janghu represented the appellant, while Advocates Ashok Bannidinni and Betsara Mylliemngap represented the respondent. .[Read Order]
