Summary
The High Court should not have reversed an acquittal in a cheque-dishonour case when the accused was unrepresented, without securing an opportunity or legal assistance for him. It could have issued a second notice, arranged counsel through legal services or appointed an amicus curiae. The conviction was set aside and the complainant’s appeal restored for a fresh hearing, with the merits expressly left undecided.
Issues
- Whether the High Court properly reversed acquittal on merits without representation or appointed assistance for the accused.
Held
- Where the accused had not appeared, the High Court should have issued a second notice or secured legal-services counsel or amicus assistance. Reversing his acquittal without an opportunity or representation was erroneous. (¶ 9)
- Both parties required a sufficient opportunity at the fresh hearing; the Supreme Court expressed no opinion on the underlying cheque-dishonour merits. (¶ 10–11)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside and the complainant’s criminal appeal restored for fresh consideration by the Madurai Bench. Accused directed to appear on 26 August 2019; High Court to notify the complainant, hear both parties and decide according to law, with merits open.