AP High Court Dismisses Bank's Appeal Against Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case for Non-Prosecution

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the National Cooperative Bank challenging the acquittal of an accused in a cheque dishonour case, ruling that a complainant's appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cannot be decided on merits without serving notice on the accused.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alapati Giridhar exercised the Court's inherent powers to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution after the appellant failed to take steps to serve notice on the respondent despite several opportunities over a period of approximately sixteen years. The Court observed that the procedure for deciding criminal appeals differs fundamentally depending on whether the prosecution is instituted by the State or arises from a private complaint between individuals.

Distinction Between State Prosecutions and Private Complaints

The Court clarified that in prosecutions launched by the State under the Indian Penal Code or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, an appeal against conviction must be decided on merits even if the accused or his counsel remains absent, as the State is represented by a Public Prosecutor. However, in cases instituted through private complaints, such as proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an appeal against an order of acquittal must be decided on merits only after duly serving notice on the respondent or accused and affording them an opportunity to be heard.

Justice Giridhar noted that the Court cannot allow an appeal and convict an accused without serving notice on him. Since the complainant is obligated to take steps to serve notice and assist the Court in the disposal of the appeal, consistent failure to do so leaves the Court with no option but to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

Procedural History of the Appeal

The case originated from a complaint filed by the bank against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In September 2008, the Trial Court acquitted the accused under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after recording the absence of the complainant and its counsel. Challenging the acquittal, the bank filed an appeal before the High Court in 2009.

Despite the pendency of the appeal for nearly sixteen years, the appellant failed to prosecute the matter effectively. On multiple occasions, neither the appellant nor its counsel appeared. When the matter was taken up recently, counsel for the appellant submitted that he was not in touch with the appellant and had no instructions, a position previously communicated to the Court in August 2025.

Applicability of Section 256 CrPC to Appellate Proceedings

The Court drew a parallel between the powers of a Magistrate under Section 256 CrPC and those of an appellate court. Section 256 empowers a Magistrate to acquit an accused where the complainant does not appear, subject to the circumstances provided therein. The Court held that just as a Magistrate can dismiss a complaint and acquit the accused for non-appearance, a Sessions Judge or the High Court can similarly dismiss an appeal filed by a complainant for non-prosecution.

The Court emphasised that allowing such appeals to remain pending indefinitely, despite the complainant's failure to serve notice on the accused, would only add to the backlog of old cases. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

Can a Complainant's Appeal Be Decided on Merits Without Serving Notice on the Accused?

No. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a complainant's appeal challenging acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be decided on merits without serving notice on the accused and giving him an opportunity to be heard. The Court lacks the power to allow the appeal and convict the accused in the absence of such service.

N. Ravi Prasad appeared for the appellant, while the Public Prosecutor represented the respondents.