Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: s.138 – Insufficiency of funds – Dishonour of cheque – Trial court acquitted the appellantaccused – In appeal by complainant before High Court, there was no representation for the appellant-accused – Upon hearing the complainant, High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted appellant-accused under s.138 of the Act – On appeal, held: Admittedly, the appellant-accused did not appear in the criminal appeal before the High Court – When the accused did not enter appearance in the High Court, High Court should have issued second notice to him or taken an assistance of amicus curiae – High Court should not have decided the case on merits, without appointing any counsel as amicus curiae, moreso when the appellant had the benefit of acquittal – Therefore, High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without affording any opportunity to the appellant-accused or by appointing an amicus curiae to argue the matter on his behalf – Matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh – Natural justice.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.