Summary
The Supreme Court set aside both a revisional conviction order and an unnecessary remand in a cheque-dishonour prosecution. The High Court should have addressed the legality of remand rather than decided the complaint itself, bypassing the undecided merits appeal. The existing record was sufficient for appellate adjudication. The accused’s appeal was restored for a fresh independent decision, without a final Supreme Court ruling on guilt.
Issues
- Whether revision against a remand permitted direct decision of the complaint’s merits.
- Whether fresh evidence before the Magistrate was needed.
- Which court should now decide the merits.
Held
- The revision concerned whether the appellate remand was lawful. If lawful, the Magistrate should have followed it; if unlawful, the appeal had to return to the appellate court because that court had not decided merits. Directly imposing imprisonment and compensation was jurisdictionally erroneous. (¶ 11–14)
- The appellate court itself had erred in ordering a fresh evidentiary exercise. Sufficient material already existed to decide the appeal one way or the other. (¶ 15–17)
- The merits appeal was restored for independent decision on the existing record, without influence from observations in the previous appellate order, High Court judgment or Supreme Court order. (¶ 18–21)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court order and appellate remand set aside; accused’s Criminal Appeal 7/2005 restored for a fresh merits decision on the existing material within six months of the directed appearance date.