1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 12.09.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice S.PALANIVELU Crl.RC.(MD)No.754 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2011 P.Andavar .. Petitioner/Accused vs. K.Jalaldeen .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order of dismissal by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Periyakulam in C.A.No.2 of 2011 dated 27.05.2011 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam in S.T.C.No.5649 of 2007, dated 25.11.2010 sentencing the petitioner to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. For Petitioners : M/s.A.K.Manickam O R D E R This Criminal Revision is preferred against the order of dismissal by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Periyakulam in C.A.No.2 of 2011 dated 27.05.2011 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam in S.T.C.No.5649 of 2007, dated 25.11.2010 sentencing the petitioner to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.5649 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam. The case ended in conviction and he preferred appeal in C.A.No.2 of 2011, on the file of the Fast Track Court, Periyakulam. It was posted for hearing on 27.05.2011. On that date, neither the revision petition nor his counsel was present. Hence, the Court below dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 3. Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though the appellant in Criminal Appeal was not present in the Court, it is the duty of the Court to appoint Legal Aid counsel to conduct the case or to grant further opportunity to the appellant to put forth his case. Hence, the dismissal order is not sustainable. 4. In the considered view of this Court, the Court below should have granted one more chance to the appellant to argue his case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that since the petitioner was suffering from viral fever for a long time, he could not contact his counsel and hence, his counsel was also unable to represent before the Court below. 6. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to allow this criminal revision case setting aside the dismissal order. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed setting aside the dismissal order in C.A.No.2 of 2011, dated 27.05.2011. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, is directed to restore the appeal to file, grant sufficient opportunity to both the parties and dispose of the same in accordance with law. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( AE ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR srm To 1.The Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Periyakulam. 2.The Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam. DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:28:: Crl.R.C.(MD)No.754 of 2011 12.09.2011 2p:3c:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/