Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vamsi Labs Private Limited, filed a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against an order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 26 May 1997. The Magistrate had acquitted the respondent, Alpine Laboratories, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, due to the non-appearance of the complainant and its advocate on the date of hearing. The Magistrate recorded that the complainant remained absent on the previous hearing and on the day of the order, despite being called repeatedly until 4 p.m. No application for adjournment was made. Consequently, the Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256 CrPC. The High Court, per Justice K.R. Shriram, examined the appeal. The court noted that process had been issued and plea recorded, distinguishing the case from Baliram Ramchandra Patil v. Ashok Pundalik Patil, where process had not been issued. The court reproduced Section 256 CrPC and analyzed its ingredients: (i) summons must have been issued on complaint, (ii) the Magistrate must be of the opinion that it is not proper to adjourn, and (iii) the order can be passed on the day appointed for appearance or any subsequent day. The court held that the Magistrate's order was justified as the complainant and his advocate were absent without any application for adjournment. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Acquittal for Non-Appearance - Section 256 CrPC - Mandatory Acquittal - Where summons has been issued and plea recorded, the Magistrate is empowered to acquit the accused if the complainant fails to appear without sufficient cause, unless the Magistrate thinks it proper to adjourn. The court held that the Magistrate's order of acquittal was proper as the complainant and his advocate were absent despite repeated calls, and no adjournment application was made. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 256 CrPC when the complainant and his advocate remained absent on the date of hearing.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 26 May 1997 is upheld.
Law Points
- Section 256 CrPC
- acquittal for non-appearance
- complainant's absence
- discretion to adjourn
- mandatory acquittal
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (11) 81
Criminal Appeal No.498 of 1998
Mr. Omkar Nagvekar i/b. Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar for appellant, Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for State
Vamsi Labs Private Limited
Alpine Laboratories, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought reversal of acquittal and conviction of the accused.
Filing Reason
Complainant and his advocate remained absent on the date of hearing, leading to acquittal under Section 256 CrPC.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, acquitted the accused on 26 May 1997 under Section 256 CrPC due to non-appearance of the complainant.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 256 CrPC when the complainant and his advocate were absent without any application for adjournment.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the case was covered by Baliram Ramchandra Patil v. Ashok Pundalik Patil, where acquittal was set aside.
State supported the Magistrate's order.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 256 CrPC, when summons has been issued and plea recorded, the Magistrate may acquit the accused if the complainant fails to appear without sufficient cause and no adjournment is sought. The Magistrate's discretion to adjourn is not mandatory, and the order of acquittal is proper in such circumstances.
Judgment Excerpts
Hence accused is hereby acquitted for offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. Act in view of provisions of Sec. 256 of Cr. P. C. and case is closed.
The ingredients of Section 256 (1) are (I) summons must have been issued on a complaint, (ii) the Magistrate should be of the opinion that for some reasons, it is not proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other date, and (iii) the date on which the order under Section 256(1) can be passed is the day appointed for appearance of the accused or any day subsequent thereto, to which the hearing may be adjourned.
Procedural History
The complaint was filed under Section 138 NI Act. Process was issued and plea recorded on 18.2.97. On 26.5.97, the complainant and advocate were absent, leading to acquittal under Section 256 CrPC. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.498 of 1998 under Section 378(4) CrPC before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 15.11.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 256, 378(4)
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act): 138
