Supreme Court On Evaluating Criminal Revision Petition | Presence of Party Not Obligatory

The Supreme Court recently held that a revision petition must be considered on merits even in the absence of a party or the party’s counsel, in accordance with the parameters for consideration of a revision petition.

The Court referred to the ruling in Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar,(2007) 7 SCC 623 wherein it was held that a criminal appeal must not be dismissed for default and held that this rule would also apply to criminal revisions.

A division bench of Justice C T Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar was considering a challenge to an order of dismissal of a criminal revision petition by the High Court Allahabad.

“When an adverse order would affect the personal liberty of a person, the fact that he is a convict cannot be a reason to deprive him of fair treatment in the matter of consideration of his revision petition in the manner prescribed by this Court, as the law laid down by this Court in that regard is binding on all Courts by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.” The Apex Court said.

In the matter at hand, the appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In appeal, his conviction was reaffirmed by the High Court. The Appellant, filed a revision petition before the High Court which was dismissed. Against this order, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court. The Apex Court found the order to be a non-reasoned order, without any consideration on merits.

“We have carefully gone through the impugned order. It would reveal that the learned counsel for the appellant as also the appellant were absent when the matter was taken up for hearing. The order would further reveal that after noting their absence, the Court perused the records and ultimately passed the order impugned. However, the order does not reflect consideration of the case on merits. In other words, it is a non-reasoned order.”

After holding that a revision petition cannot be dismissed without consideration on merits, the Apex Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. However, taking note of the fact that the matter pertains to the year 2017, the High Court was asked to consider it expeditiously.

Case Title: Taj Mohammed V. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. __of 2023 (Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) No.5298/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Click here to read/download order