The Madras High Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of criminal appellate procedure: an appellate court cannot dismiss a criminal appeal merely due to the absence of the appellant or counsel without examining the record or ensuring procedural fairness. This judgment restores the integrity of appellate review in criminal matters where liberty is at stake.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, J. Rahul, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial Level) at Alandur, Chengalpattu District, in Criminal Case No. 61 of 2022. He filed a criminal appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, as Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2025, challenging the conviction and sentence.
Key Facts
- The trial court delivered its judgment on 03.12.2024.
- The petitioner filed the criminal appeal on or before the statutory deadline.
- The appellate court listed the matter for hearing on multiple occasions.
- On the date of final hearing, the petitioner’s counsel was absent.
- The appellate court, without calling for the trial court record or appointing an amicus curiae, dismissed the appeal on 09.09.2025 with the order: "Appellant called absent, No representation. Notice to respondent not taken. Sufficient Opportunities provided to the appellant. Hence Criminal Appeal is dismissed for default."
Procedural History
- 03.12.2024: Conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Alandur.
- 04.12.2024: Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2025 before the District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.
- 09.09.2025: Appellate court dismissed the appeal for default without examining the record or hearing on merits.
- 15.09.2025: Petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 811 of 2026 before the Madras High Court under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
- 08.04.2026: Madras High Court heard the revision petition and delivered judgment.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the appellate order dated 09.09.2025, setting aside the dismissal for default, and remittal of the appeal for fresh hearing on merits with proper application of law.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appellate court may dismiss a criminal appeal for default without examining the trial court record or appointing an amicus curiae, even when the accused’s liberty is involved.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Bani Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996) 4 SCC 720 and K. Muruganandam v. State (2021) 20 SCC 642 to argue that appellate courts have a non-delegable duty to examine the record and ensure a fair hearing. He emphasized that dismissal for default without record review violates Article 21 and the principles of natural justice. He further cited Kabira v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1981 Supp SCC 76) and Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam (2011) 4 SCC 729 to establish that absence of counsel cannot be grounds for summary dismissal in criminal appeals.
For the Respondent
The State did not file a written response. No counsel appeared for the respondent during the hearing.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the appellate court’s order was devoid of any reasoning and failed to engage with the merits of the appeal. It noted that the trial court’s judgment, evidence, and arguments were never examined. The Court emphasized that the duty of an appellate court in criminal matters is not merely procedural but constitutional.
"Whenever an appeal is filed, it is the duty of the Appellate Court to peruse the records and the judgment of the Trial Court, and thereafter, to pass a reasoned judgment."
The Court further held that the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Muruganandam explicitly condemned the practice of dismissing appeals for non-appearance of counsel, particularly in cases involving personal liberty. The Court stated that such dismissals are not only legally impermissible but also violate the accused’s right to effective representation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court rejected the notion that "sufficient opportunities" were provided, noting that opportunity without meaningful hearing is illusory. It held that the appellate court’s failure to appoint an amicus curiae, even in the absence of counsel, was a grave procedural lapse.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Madras High Court set aside the order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2025. The matter was remitted to the appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, with directions to examine the trial court record, afford a proper hearing, and appoint an amicus curiae if the appellant’s counsel remains absent. All connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Appellate Courts Cannot Dismiss for Default Without Record Review
- Practitioners must now cite K. Muruganandam and Bani Singh to oppose summary dismissals in criminal appeals.
- Any order dismissing an appeal for non-appearance without examining the record is liable to be set aside.
- Courts must record reasons for dismissal, even if the appellant is absent.
Amicus Curiae Is Mandatory in Criminal Appeals
- In all criminal appeals where the accused is unrepresented, the appellate court must appoint an amicus curiae before proceeding to dismiss.
- Failure to do so renders the order void ab initio.
- This applies even if the accused is represented by counsel who is late or absent on one occasion.
Procedural Fairness Trumps Technical Defaults
- The right to a fair hearing under Article 21 overrides procedural technicalities.
- Courts must adopt a liberal approach to ensure substantive justice in criminal matters.
- Practitioners should file applications under Section 442 BNSS to compel record review if an appeal is dismissed summarily.
