Rajasthan High Court: In a Criminal Revision Petition, filed by the petitioner challenging the Appellate Court’s order dated 23-08-2022 dismissing the petitioner’s appeal for non-prosecution without giving him the opportunity to be heard, a Single-Judge Bench of Manoj Kumar Garg, J., set aside the order holding it to be mechanical in nature and against the principles of natural justice. The Court held that the party should not suffer due to counsel’s negligence and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Court, directing it to pass a detailed, reasoned/speaking order in accordance with law, after considering all the material evidence available before it and after giving the petitioner the opportunity of being heard.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner was convicted vide order dated 22-07-2021, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 8 Lacs. Against this conviction order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was subsequently dismissed on 23-08-2022 on the ground of non-prosecution, without providing the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing.
Following the dismissal of the appeal, an arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution and the subsequent arrest warrant, the petitioner had filed the instant criminal revision petition seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 23-08-2022 and to remand the matter for a fresh decision on merits.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The Court reiterated the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which contemplates that no one should be condemned unheard, embodying a foundational tenet of natural justice ensuring fairness and preventing arbitrary decisions.
The Court noted that,
“A party should not be penalized or prejudiced due to the negligence or misconduct of their legal counsel. The rationale is rooted in the recognition that the integrity of judicial proceedings depends on principles of fairness and justice, and allowing a party to suffer consequences solely from counsel’s negligence would undermine these principles, unjustly penalizing an individual for circumstances beyond his control.”
The Court further noted that an appeal against an order of conviction cannot be dismissed in default but must be taken up and decided on merits even if the appellant in person or the counsel representing him is not present.
The Court observed that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution and without giving a proper opportunity of hearing. The appellate court had passed the order in a mechanical and cursory manner, without application of mind, without giving any reasons or findings.
The Court held the order dated 23-08-2022 to be mechanical in nature and against the principles of natural justice and set it aside. The Court further remanded the case back to the appellate court, with a direction to pass a detailed, reasoned/speaking order in accordance with law, after considering all the material evidence available before it and after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to remain present for the hearing.
[Firm Jehtmal & Sons v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 841/2025, decided on 11-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Oshin Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Virkam Singh Rajpurohit, PP
