M. Saravanan v. S. Murugesan

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to set aside the Docket Order of return passed in unnumbered M.P. in C.A. No.111 of 2025 dated 07.03.2026 on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Tiruchengode.

¶2The petitioner was prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Upon conclusion of trial, the Trial Court found him Page1 of 5 guilty and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and further directed him to pay the cheque amount as compensation. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal in CA.No.111 of 2025 before the Lower Appellate Court. Pending appeal, the sentence was suspended and the petitioner has been regularly appeared before the Court.

¶3It is the case of the petitioner that due to a miscommunication, he could not appear before the Lower Appellate Court on 09.12.2025. Consequently, the appeal came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on the said date. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition on 05.03.2026 seeking restoration of the appeal. However, the said petition was returned by the Lower Appellate Court on the ground that "There is no provision for Sessions Court to restore the Criminal Appeal itself. Hence returned". Challenging the said return, the present petition has been filed.

¶4Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶5It is seen that the petitioner, who is the accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was convicted by the Trial Court. He thereafter preferred a statutory appeal and the sentence imposed upon him was Page2 of 5 suspended pending disposal of the appeal. Owing to his non-appearance, the appeal came to be dismissed for the non prosecution on 09.12.2025.

¶6The appeal preferred by the petitioner is a statutory appeal, which ought to be decided on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing both sides. Even in the event of non-appearance of the petitioner, the Appellate Court ought not to dismiss the appeal for default. The proper course would be to appoint a Legal Aid Counsel, hear the matter on merits, and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution cannot be sustained.

¶7Accordingly, the docket order returning the restoration petition is set aside. The appeal in C.A.No.111 of 2025 shall stand restored to the file. The Second Additional District Judge, Tiruchengode is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits and in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties.

¶8With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. 12-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order PVS Page3 of 5 To II Additional District Judge, Tiruchengode Page4 of 5 CRLoOPoNo.o14848oofo2026 M.NIRMALoKUMAR,oJ. PVS CRLoOPoNo.o14848oofo2026 12-06-2026 Page5oofo5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR M. Saravanan ..Petitioner(s) Vs S. Murugesan ..Respondent(s) To Set aside the returned Docket Order passed in Unnumbered MP in C.A. No.111 of 2025 dated 07-03-2026 on the file of Honorable Second Additional District Judge, Tiruchengode and pass such other or further orders as may be deemed necessary and fit in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s): M/s. S. Lakshmipathy