Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Bureau of Indian Standards, a body incorporated under Section 3 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, filed a complaint against the respondent-accused for offences punishable under Sections 11 and 12 read with Section 33 of the said Act. The complaint was filed in 2006. The 27th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, by order dated 11/08/2011, acquitted the accused after recording that the complainant and his counsel were absent since the last three dates continuously. The Magistrate also noted that the case was of the year 2006, the accused was giving his presence since 2009, and the case was pending without progress. The appellant challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court heard the appeal with consent of both parties. The appellant argued that the complainant is a statutory body and the acquittal was not justified. The High Court, after considering the submissions, found that the Magistrate's order of acquittal was not sustainable. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the complaint to its original number, directing the Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Leave to appeal - The appellant-complainant, a body incorporated under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, challenged the acquittal of the accused for default of appearance. The High Court held that the Magistrate's order of acquittal was not justified as the complainant was a statutory body and the case was pending since 2006. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the acquittal, restoring the complaint to its original number. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate due to absence of complainant and his counsel is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 11/08/2011 passed by the 27th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur is set aside. The complaint is restored to its original number. The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Acquittal for default of complainant
- Section 378 CrPC
- Appeal against acquittal
- Bureau of Indian Standards Act
- 1986
- Sections 11
- 12
- 33
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (03) 155
Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2012
Mr. P. P. Kothari for the Appellant, Mr. S. G. Karmarkar for the Respondent No.1, Mr. A. M. Deshpande, APP for the Respondent No.2
Bureau of Indian Standards, Through Kancheria Raja Scientist E and Enforcement Nodal Officer
Maheshkumar S/o Nanakram Zampani, Proprietor : M/s. Indian Hardware, and The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal order passed by the Magistrate in a complaint under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986.
Remedy Sought
The appellant-complainant sought setting aside of the acquittal order and restoration of the complaint.
Filing Reason
The Magistrate acquitted the accused due to absence of the complainant and his counsel on three consecutive dates.
Previous Decisions
The 27th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur acquitted the accused on 11/08/2011.
Issues
Whether the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate due to absence of complainant and his counsel is sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the complainant is a body incorporated under Section 3 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986, and the acquittal was not justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The Magistrate's order of acquittal for default of appearance was not justified as the complainant was a statutory body and the case was pending since 2006. The High Court set aside the acquittal and restored the complaint.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant has challenged the validity and legality of the impugned order dated 11/08/2011, whereby the 27th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur was pleased to acquit the accused after recording that the complainant and his counsel were absent since last three dates continuously.
Learned Advocate for the appellant-complainant submitted that the complainant is a Body incorporated under Section 3 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 for harmonious development of the activities of standardization, marketing and for certification of goods.
Procedural History
The complaint was filed in 2006. The accused appeared since 2009. On 11/08/2011, the Magistrate acquitted the accused due to absence of complainant and his counsel. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2012 in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, which was heard and allowed on 30/03/2012.
Acts & Sections
- Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986: 3, 11, 12, 33
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 378
