Case Note & Summary
The appellant-accused and respondent-complainant were friends. The appellant borrowed Rs.30,000 from the respondent on 12.08.2001 and issued a post-dated cheque dated 04.09.2003 for the same amount. The respondent presented the cheque on 16.01.2004, but it was returned on 19.01.2004 due to insufficient funds. A statutory notice was sent on 12.02.2004, and a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kuzhithurai. The trial court acquitted the appellant, holding that the cheque was not presented within six months of its issuance and that the debt was time-barred. The respondent appealed to the High Court of Madras. In the High Court, the appellant was unrepresented. The High Court reversed the acquittal, convicted the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and imposed a fine of Rs.60,000 with default imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court should not have decided the appeal without hearing him or appointing an amicus curiae. The Supreme Court held that when an accused is unrepresented in a criminal appeal against acquittal, the High Court must either issue notice, appoint a counsel through the Legal Services Committee, or appoint an amicus curiae. Reversing an acquittal without affording an opportunity to the accused violates natural justice. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders, restored the appeal, and remitted the matter to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court for fresh consideration, directing the appellant to appear on 26.08.2019 and the High Court to issue notice to the respondent.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - When an accused is unrepresented in a criminal appeal against acquittal, the High Court must either issue notice, appoint a counsel through Legal Services Committee, or appoint an amicus curiae before deciding the appeal on merits - Held that reversing an acquittal without affording opportunity to the accused violates principles of natural justice (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could reverse the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without affording him an opportunity of being heard or appointing an amicus curiae when the accused was unrepresented.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders dated 06.07.2018 and 23.06.2018, restored Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 608 of 2007 to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The appellant was directed to appear on 26.08.2019, and the High Court was directed to issue notice to the respondent and afford sufficient opportunity to both parties.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Criminal appeal
- Acquittal reversal
- Amicus curiae
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
