Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Decide Criminal Revisions in Absence of Convict’s Counsel.


17 September 2025 Criminal Revision >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that criminal revisions or appeals made by a convict cannot be determined in their absence without proper legal representation for them. In a recent ruling passed on September 17, 2025, the Bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vipul M. Pancholi revoked two orders of the Allahabad High Court that had rejected a criminal revision and declined to recall that rejection.

The case related to Riyazuddin Munne, who was convicted under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code for a crime committed in 1987. While initially sentenced to five years' imprisonment, he had already served one and a half years in custody. His criminal revision petition to the High Court was rejected in 2022 in his absence, and his application to revive it was later rejected in 2025 on grounds of maintainability.


 
 
   

In the Supreme Court, the appellant submitted that his case must not have been resolved without even hearing him or at least fixing a legal aid counsel. The Court held in line with previous precedents like Kabira v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1981), Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam (2011), and K. Muruganandam v. State (2021). These courts have all held that determining criminal cases without representation is tantamount to denial of fair hearing.

Significantly, the State of Uttar Pradesh also filed support for the prayer for revival of the revision petition. Noting this, the Court sent the case back to the High Court for reconsideration on merits. In the interim, in view of the fact that the appellant is an old person and has already undergone considerable jail time, the Supreme Court ordered his release on bail upon furnishing bonds before the trial court.

The ruling emphasizes the constitutional promise of fair trial and access to justice, holding that courts should ensure representation for accused individuals even in their absence. It sends a powerful message that technical dismissals cannot take precedence over the fundamental right of a convict to appeal against their conviction.


Section 394., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860