Revision barred where a statutory appeal lies, and criminal appeals need a fair hearing before merits disposal.

Where a statute provides a specific appellate remedy, revision is barred at the instance of a party who could have appealed; a challenge to alleged inadequacy of compensation in a section 138 prosecution was therefore held not maintainable in revision and was dismissed. A criminal appeal cannot be disposed of on merits merely because the accused or counsel is absent; the court must secure a fair hearing and may appoint amicus curiae if needed. The appellate judgment dismissing the appeal in the absence of representation was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the parties or with amicus assistance if required.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision was maintainable against the order imposing fine-cum-compensation in a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the appellate court could dismiss the accused's criminal appeal on merits in the absence of the accused and without representation by counsel.

Issue (i): Whether a revision was maintainable against the order imposing fine-cum-compensation in a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The proviso to section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers a statutory right of appeal on the victim against an order acquitting the accused, convicting for a lesser offence, or imposing inadequate compensation. Where such a statutory appeal lies, section 401(4) bars entertainment of a revision at the instance of the party who could have appealed. The Court treated the complainant's grievance against alleged inadequacy of compensation as falling within the appellate route provided by law, and not within revisional jurisdiction under sections 401 and 482 of the Code.

Conclusion: The revision filed to challenge inadequacy of compensation was not maintainable and was dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court could dismiss the accused's criminal appeal on merits in the absence of the accused and without representation by counsel.

Analysis: A criminal appeal cannot be disposed of on merits merely because the appellant or counsel is absent. The court is required to ensure fair hearing and, if necessary, appoint amicus curiae before proceeding. Disposition on merits without representation offends the principles of natural justice and denies the accused an effective hearing in appeal.

Conclusion: The appellate judgment dismissing the accused's appeal on merits in the absence of representation was set aside and the appeal was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the alleged inadequacy of compensation failed for want of maintainability, but the conviction appeal was restored for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing the parties or with assistance of amicus curiae if required.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute provides a specific appellate remedy, revision is barred at the instance of a party who could have appealed; and a criminal appeal cannot be decided on merits without affording a fair hearing, including appointment of amicus curiae if the accused is unrepresented.

---