Smt. Uma Kashyap vs Anurag Sharma
2023 Latest Caselaw 102 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                         NAFR

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             CRR No. 4 of 2023

   1. Smt. Uma Kashyap w/o Shri Arendra Kashyap Aged About 45 Years R/
      o Mahaveer Park Paraskol Road Machewa, Thana, Tahsil And District-
      Mahasamund, Office Address- Jila Vyapar Evam Uddyog Kendra,
      Purana Tahsil Parisar Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund,
      Chhattisgarh

                                                                ---- Petitioner

                                   Versus

   • Anurag Sharma S/o Shri Umesh Chandra Sharma Aged About 36 Years
     R/o Trimurty Colony Mahasamund, Thana, Tahsil And District-
     Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

                                                              ---- Respondent

For Petitioner : Shri Sunil Sahu with Shri Sumit Shrivastava, Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

Order On Board

05/01/2023 :

1. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in CRA No.47/2022, arising out of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7.6.2022 passed in Criminal complaint Case No.1748/2019 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mahasamund holding the petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to undergo the sentence till rising of the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs.6,90,000/- within a period of 6 months, the petitioner has preferred this Revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the impugned order, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed for want

of prosecution as also for non-compliance of the order for depositing 20% of the compensation amount. Learned counsel would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Subedar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh {(2020) 17 SCC 765}, in which it has been held that dismissal of appeal in the absence of any representation on behalf of the appellant is not permissible. It is well accepted that right of being represented through a counsel is part of due process clause and is referable to the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel prays that the matter may be remanded back to the appellate Court to decide the case afresh strictly on its own merits.

3. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the principles laid down in the matter of Subedar (Supra), this Court is of the view that the manner in which appeal has been disposed of is not justifiable.

4. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the concerned Sessions Judge to restore CRA No.47/2022 and decide the case strictly on its own merits.

5. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court on 7th February, 2023.

6. The Revision is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve