District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Right to Appeal Cannot Be Curtailed in a Cursory Manner: Punjab and Haryana HC Sets Aside Ex Parte Appellate Decision in Cheque Dishonor Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a critical judgment, underscored the importance of effective legal representation in appellate proceedings, setting aside an ex parte decision of the First Appellate Court in Lakhwinder Singh Vs. M/S Sew and Stitch.

This case revolves around the conviction of Lakhwinder Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonor of a cheque amounting to ₹40 lacs. Singh's appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court for non-compliance with the directive to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. The court conducted proceedings ex parte, without Singh’s proper representation.

Singh, aggrieved by the lower court's judgment and the ex parte appellate decision, contended that the hearing lacked adequate representation, a crucial element underscored in the Supreme Court judgment “K. Muruganandam & Ors Vs. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr.''

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, scrutinizing the appellant's situation, noted that the appellate hearing was conducted ex parte, and none of the grounds raised in Singh's appeal were considered. Highlighting the Supreme Court’s decision in “Bani Singh Vs. State of U.P.”, the court observed that the Appellate Court is obligated to dispose of appeals on merits rather than non-prosecution.

The judge remarked, “The appeal is a statutory right of a convict, which cannot be taken away in a cursory manner. The adequate protection granted under the Statute should be adhered to and that adequate protection also includes the adequate and effective representation of the appellant."

Decision: The High Court remanded the case to the Appellate Court for a fresh decision, subject to Singh appearing before the court and depositing 20% of the compensation amount. This decision reinstates the fundamental legal principle that adequate representation is key to ensuring justice.

Date of Decision: March 20, 2024

Lakhwinder Singh Vs. M/S Sew and Stitch

Latest Legal News