Madras High Court
CRL RC/2264/2026 of G. Sumathi Vs M. Ganesan on 1 October 2026
Crl.R.C.Nos.2264 & 2265 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.R.C.Nos.2264 & 2265 of 2026
AND
Crl.M.P.Nos.18661 & 18663 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA010196582026}
1.G. Sumathi
... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.2264 of 2026
2.G. Harisudhan
... Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.2265 of 2026
Vs
M. Ganesan
... Respondent in both cases
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.2264 of 2026 : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS, praying to call for the records and set aside the order passed on 05.12.2025 in Crl.A.681 of 2025 on the file of the XIX
Additional Sessions Judge at City Civil Court, Chennai, against in S.T.C.No.5660 of 2023 on the file of the XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, at Chennai dated 28.04.2025 and remand back to court by allowing this criminal revision petition.
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.2265 of 2026 : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS, praying to call for the records and set aside the order passed on 05.12.2025 in Crl.A.682 of 2025 on the file of the XIX
Additional Sessions Judge at City Civil Court, Chennai, against in S.T.C.No.5661 of 2023 on the file of the XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, at Chennai and remand back to court by allowing this criminal revision petition.
Crl.R.C.Nos.2264 & 2265 of 2026
In both cases :
For Petitioner
: Mr.Lokesh
for M/s.MRID Law Firm
For Respondent
: Notice dispensed with
*****
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER
The revisions challenge the judgments passed by the learned XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.A.Nos.681 and 682 of 2025, which were dismissed for default, since the petitioners were called absent and there was no representation for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners were convicted by the trial court for the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and they have preferred the above appeals before the learned XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. After notice was issued to the respondent, it appears that the petitioners were called absent and there was no representation for the petitioners, and hence, the impugned judgments were passed, dismissing the appeals for default.
3. Since the impugned order is partially illegal, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.
Crl.R.C.Nos.2264 & 2265 of 2026
4. It is well settled that an appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed for default for non-appearance of the appellant. The learned Judge having admitted the appeals, ought to have given one more opportunity to the appellants or decided the appeals on merits, by appointing a legal-aid counsel, even if the appellants were called absent. Therefore, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside.
5. Accordingly, the impugned judgments are set aside and the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. The appeals are restored to the file of the learned XIX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and the learned Judge shall once again issue notice to the respondent and decide the appeals on merits. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.18661 & 18663 seeking suspension of sentence imposed on the petitioners through the impugned judgments are closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sp
Crl.R.C.Nos.2264 & 2265 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN J. sp To
1. The XIX Additional Sessions Court, Chennai.
2. The XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. Crl.R.C.Nos.2264 & 2265 of 2026 AND Crl.M.P.Nos.18661 & 18663 of 2026 01-10-2026