Kolkata: In dealing with a case relating to a Negotiable Instruments Act, the Calcutta High Court observed that criminal appeals cannot be dismissed on merits due to an appellant’s absence or non-representation by counsel, reinforcing natural justice principles. The bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, adjudicating two revisional applications, set aside an appellate court’s judgment for breaching fair hearing rights and clarified the maintainability of revisions against inadequate compensation under the NI Act, 1881.
The case arose from a 2016 dispute under Section 138 of the NI Act. In February 2012, Abhishek Dhanania sought a Rs 1,5,00,000 commercial loan from Prasanna Kumar Nahata at 12 per cent annual interest, repayable on demand. Nahata provided the sum on February 20, 2015, and Dhanania paid interest periodically until November 26, 2015. To clear the debt, Dhanania issued a Rs 1,5,00,000 cheque which was dishonored on December 21, 2015 for insufficient funds. After an unanswered demand notice, Nahata filed a complaint. On August 4, 2018, the trial court convicted Dhanania, ordering a Rs. 15,00,000 fine-cum-compensation, with six months’ imprisonment if unpaid. Dhanania’s appeal, dismissed on September 19, 2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Calcutta, due to his absence and lack of counsel, prompted him to file the revisional application. Meanwhile, Nahata’s application sought for higher compensation.
Justice Gupta ruled the appellate dismissal invalid as no amicus curiae was appointed, violating ‘audi alteram partem’ (hear the other side). The 2019 judgment was quashed, and the appeal remanded for fresh adjudication, ensuring both parties’ right to be heard. The court directed the appellate court to rehear the criminal appeal of Dhanania on merits, appointing an amicus curiae if he is unrepresented and vacated interim orders. Nahata’s revision was considered as non-maintainable, as the court observed that Section 372 of the CrPC provides an appellate remedy for inadequate compensation. Nahata was advised to appeal.