Badeti Sridhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another, 2026

The petitioner was convicted by the trial court for the offence under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, relating to dishonour of a cheque.

The trial court sentenced him to one year's simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹7.90 lakh.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal before the appellate court.

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, observing that the appellant remained absent despite the pendency of a bailable warrant.

The petitioner challenged the dismissal order by filing a criminal revision before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

He contended that his counsel had in fact appeared before the appellate court and sought a pass over due to bona fide reasons.

The petitioner further argued that, irrespective of his absence, a criminal appeal against conviction could not legally be dismissed for default.

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition.

The Court set aside the appellate court's order dismissing the criminal appeal for non-prosecution.

The Court held that a criminal appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed merely because the appellant or his advocate is absent.

The Court observed that the appellate court is duty-bound to either adjourn the matter or decide the appeal on merits after examining the entire record.

The Court found that the appellate court's order was self-contradictory because its preamble acknowledged the presence of the petitioner's counsel while simultaneously dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.

The Court held that once the appearance of counsel had been recorded, the appeal could not be treated as unrepresented.

The Court reiterated that an appeal against conviction is a valuable statutory right that cannot be defeated by procedural default.

The Court restored the criminal appeal to the file of the appellate court.

The appellate court was directed to hear both parties and dispose of the appeal afresh on merits, preferably within two months.

The judgment reinforces the settled principle that the right to appeal against a criminal conviction is a valuable statutory safeguard protecting personal liberty.

The Court correctly distinguished criminal appellate proceedings from civil proceedings, where dismissal for default is generally permissible.

By insisting that appellate courts decide criminal appeals on merits, the judgment strengthens procedural fairness and safeguards against wrongful convictions.

The decision emphasizes that appellate courts bear an independent duty to scrutinize the legality of convictions even if the appellant remains absent.

The Court highlighted that procedural lapses should not deprive a convicted person of substantive justice.

The judgment also underscores the importance of judicial consistency by criticizing the appellate court's contradictory finding regarding the presence of counsel.

The ruling promotes the constitutional principles of fair trial, due process, and access to justice by ensuring that criminal convictions receive meaningful appellate scrutiny.

The decision serves as an important precedent preventing mechanical dismissal of criminal appeals and ensuring that convictions are affirmed only after judicial examination of the merits.