Criminal appeal on merits without counsel and cheque dishonour presumption not rebutted: conviction upheld on record evidence.

An appellate criminal court may decide an appeal on merits from the record even when counsel are absent, and it is not required to adjourn the matter merely for non-appearance. Applying that principle, the appellate disposal was upheld. In the cheque dishonour prosecution, the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption because the claim that the cheque was handed to a third party and misused was not supported by a police complaint or credible evidence showing how it reached the complainant. The conviction and sentence were therefore affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an appellate court can decide a criminal appeal on merits in the absence of counsel for the parties; (ii) whether the accused rebutted the presumption arising from the dishonoured cheque.

Issue (i): whether an appellate court can decide a criminal appeal on merits in the absence of counsel for the parties.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that an appellate court is not bound to adjourn a matter merely because counsel are absent. It may examine the record and the trial court judgment and decide the appeal on merits. The Court treated the larger Bench view permitting such disposal as governing the field and held that the appellate court had acted within law in proceeding with the appeal when no appearance was made.

Conclusion: The challenge to the appellate court's disposal of the appeal in the absence of counsel was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the accused rebutted the presumption arising from the dishonoured cheque.

Analysis: The Court held that the defence version that the cheque had been given to a third party and later misused was not probabilised by any police complaint or credible evidence showing how the cheque reached the complainant. The documents relied on by the defence were found insufficient to displace the statutory presumption on a preponderance of probability.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the presumption, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision was found to be without merit, and the concurrent findings of guilt were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate criminal court may decide an appeal on merits on the basis of the record when counsel are absent, and in a cheque dishonour prosecution the accused must rebut the statutory presumption by credible evidence showing a probable defence.

---