Can a bank keep an appeal against acquittal in cheque bounce case proceedings alive for about 16 years without ever serving notice on the accused? The Andhra Pradesh High Court has said no, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.
Amaravati: After about 16 years on the High Court’s board, an appeal filed by a cooperative bank against the acquittal of an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been dismissed for non-prosecution, with the Andhra Pradesh High Court holding that such an appeal cannot be decided on merits unless notice is served on the accused, and that a complainant who takes no steps to serve notice despite several opportunities cannot keep it pending indefinitely [National Cooperative Bank v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.].
Justice Alapati Giridhar, sitting singly, used the High Court’s inherent powers to close the appeal, observing that the appellant had shown no interest in prosecuting it.
Two kinds of prosecutions, two rules
The Court drew a line based on how the case began. Where the State prosecutes under the IPC or the BNS, an appeal against conviction has to be decided on merits even if the accused or his counsel stays away, since the Public Prosecutor represents the State. In a private complaint between individuals, Section 138 proceedings being an example, an appeal against conviction has to be decided on merits only after notice is duly served on the respondent-complainant.
Just as a Magistrate may dismiss a complaint and acquit the accused under Section 256 CrPC, the Court added, a Sessions Judge may dismiss a complainant’s appeal for non-prosecution. Letting such appeals sit indefinitely, it observed, only adds to the pendency of old cases.
No reversal behind the accused’s back
Framing the question before it, the Court held that it could not proceed to decide the appeal on merits in the absence of notice to the accused:
“The answer is in the negative, as the Complainant has to take steps to serve notice on the Accused and assist the Court for disposal of the Appeal, the Court cannot proceed to decide the Appeal on merits as the Court cannot allow the Appeal and convict the accused even without serving notice on him.”
“This Court is of the humble view that when the Appeal is filed by the Complainant challenging an order of acquittal, and the Complainant consistently did not pursue the Appeal to take steps to serve notice on the Accused despite being granted several opportunities, this Court has no option except to exercise its inherent powers and dismiss the Appeal for nonprosecution.”
From a 2008 acquittal to a counsel with no instructions
The bank’s complaint was one of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act. In September 2008, the trial court acquitted the accused under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after recording that neither the complainant nor its counsel was present.
The bank went to the High Court against that acquittal in 2009 but, despite several opportunities, did not take steps to serve notice on the accused, and on some dates nobody appeared for it. When the matter was finally taken up, its counsel told the Court that he was not in touch with the appellant and had no instructions, a position he had also conveyed in August 2025.
Why the judgment matters
Cheque bounce cases form a large share of the criminal docket, and complainants’ appeals against acquittal often stay on the board for years after the complainant loses interest. The ruling confirms that an appellate court is not bound to keep such appeals pending, nor can it reverse an acquittal behind the back of an unserved accused.
By placing the burden of serving notice squarely on the complainant in private complaint cases, the judgment gives appellate courts a clear basis to clear long-dormant appeals while preserving the accused’s right to be heard.
Case Title: National Cooperative Bank v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (title to be verified)
Bench: Justice Alapati Giridhar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Date of Judgment: November 2026 (date to be verified)
Appearances: Advocate N. Ravi Prasad for the appellant; Public Prosecutor for the respondents
