Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Dhule Shahar Kirana va Bhusar Vyapari Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, through its representative Suresh Sahebrao Jadhav, filed a criminal application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25-6-2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhule, Court No.8, in Summary Criminal Case No.1961 of 2006. The trial court had acquitted the respondent, Manju Narendra Mantri, of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The High Court perused the impugned judgment and the record with the assistance of counsel. It noted that paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment indicated that the complainant failed to advance arguments despite opportunity, and an order to that effect was passed on Exhibit 86. Upon examining Exhibit 86, it appeared that the complainant's advocate was busy before another court and could not remain present, and had preferred an adjournment application. However, the trial court rejected the adjournment application observing no reasonable cause. The High Court found that the trial court ought to have considered the reason for the advocate's absence and granted a short adjournment to enable the complainant to advance arguments. The rejection of the adjournment and the consequent acquittal without hearing the complainant on merits resulted in failure of justice. Accordingly, the High Court granted leave to appeal and directed that the appeal be registered and placed before the appropriate court for admission and further proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Leave to Appeal - Acquittal - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The applicant-complainant sought leave to appeal against acquittal of the respondent-accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court acquitted the accused after rejecting the complainant's adjournment application when the advocate was busy before another court. The High Court held that the trial court ought to have considered the reason for absence and granted a short adjournment, and that the rejection without hearing the complainant on merits resulted in failure of justice. Leave to appeal was granted. (Paras 4-6) B) Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Adjournment - The trial court's order rejecting the adjournment application was passed without considering that the advocate was engaged before another court. The High Court observed that the trial court should have granted a short adjournment to enable the complainant to advance arguments, and the failure to do so violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's rejection of the adjournment application and consequent acquittal of the accused without hearing the complainant's arguments warrants grant of leave to appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court granted leave to appeal and directed that the appeal be registered and placed before the appropriate court for admission and further proceedings.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- adjournment discretion
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- leave to appeal against acquittal
