Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., a cooperative sugar factory registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent, Anant Laxman Ghogre, a labour contractor. The respondent had entered into an agreement to supply labourers and transportation for sugarcane crushing for the year 2000-01 and obtained an advance. Upon verification, Rs. 30,893/- was found due, and the respondent issued a cheque dated 27.12.2000 for that amount, which was dishonoured. The complaint was filed on 25.4.2001 as S.C.C. No. 1079 of 2001 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Osmanabad. On 20.9.2010, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for want of prosecution and acquitted the accused. The complainant then filed the present application seeking leave to appeal against that order. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the dismissal was technical and not on merits, and therefore granted leave to appeal. The application was treated as an appeal, admitted, and taken up for final hearing with consent. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal in this order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Leave to Appeal - Section 256 CrPC - Dismissal for Want of Prosecution - The complainant sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of its complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for non-prosecution. The court held that since the dismissal was technical and not on merits, leave to appeal should be granted. The application was treated as an appeal and admitted for final hearing. (Paras 2-5) B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Section 138 - Complaint - The appellant, a cooperative sugar factory, filed a complaint against the respondent for dishonour of a cheque of Rs. 30,893/- issued towards repayment of dues. The complaint was dismissed under Section 256 CrPC for want of prosecution. The court granted leave to appeal, noting the dismissal was not on merits. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an order dismissing a complaint under Section 256 CrPC for want of prosecution, and whether such dismissal bars the complainant from filing an appeal.
Final Decision
Leave to appeal granted. The application was treated as an appeal, admitted, and taken up for final hearing. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal in this order.
Law Points
- Leave to appeal granted when dismissal is technical under Section 256 CrPC
- not on merits
- Dismissal under Section 256 CrPC is not a bar to file appeal
- Complaint under Section 138 NI Act can be restored if dismissed for non-prosecution
