(Prayer: This Criminal Revision petition is filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 BNSS, to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in Crl.A.No.01 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025 which is confirming the order passed by the learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in STC.No.9698 of 2023 dated 03.12.2024 by allowing this revision petition.)

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai in Crl.A.No.01 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025 confirming the order passed by the learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in STC.No.9698 of 2023 dated 03.12.2024

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in Crl.A.No.01 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025 is only on the ground of non-appearance of the appellant. He also contended that it is the duty upon the learned Judge to go through the materials before passing the order and such a cryptic order cannot be passed in Crl.A.No.01 of 2025.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. On perusal of the order passed by the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, it was not on merit. The learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has passed the following order:

                   “NBW pending against for appellant. No representation for appellant. No argument put forth on the appellants side. Hence this appeal is dismissed for default.”.

5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it discloses that the learned Judge has summarily dismissed the appeal without going into the records. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1996) 4 SCC 720 whenever an appeal is filed, it is the duty of the appellant Court to peruse the records and the judgment of the Trial Court, and thereafter, to pass a reasoned judgment.

6. It is also relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Muruganandam Vs. State reported in (2021) 20 SCC 642, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has heavily come down against the order passed in a Criminal Appeal only on the basis of a non prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Appellate Court is obliged to proceed with the hearing of the case only after appointing an Amicus Curiae and in any case, the appeal cannot be dismissed merely because of non-representation or default of the advocate for the accused. This position has already been settled in Kabira Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1981 Supp SCC 76 and Mohd.Sukur Ali Vs. State of Assam reported in (2011) 4 SCC 729.

7. However, in the present case, the appellate Court, merely noting the absence of the appellant and without examining the records available before it, has passed the impugned order, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, this Court finds that the said order is unsustainable and the judgment is to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted back for fresh disposal.

8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that basing upon the conviction warrant, the petitioner was confined to Central Prison, Puzhal-I, Chennai.

9. In view of above infirmity found in the order of the Appellate Court, the order dated 10.10.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Therefore, it is incumbent upon to release the petitioner henceforth, if his custody is not required in any other matters.

10. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed as indicated above. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.