Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Govindrao Ranisawargaonkar, was the original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No. 588/2007 before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gangakhed, against respondents 2 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (defamation). Due to the persistent absence of the appellant and his counsel, the Magistrate, by order dated 30-4-2013, acquitted the accused under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), observing that the complainant had not taken steps to secure the presence of the accused and appeared to have no interest in the case. The appellant challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court noted that the impugned order did not record any prior opportunity given to the complainant to explain his absence, and the complainant was 78 years old. The court held that the Magistrate should have considered the circumstances and given the complainant a chance to proceed. The appeal was allowed, the order of acquittal was set aside, and the complaint was restored to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The court directed the trial court to expedite the hearing and dispose of the case within six months.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Acquittal under Section 256 CrPC - Restoration of Complaint - Complainant's persistent absence - The Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256 CrPC due to the complainant's absence and lack of interest. The High Court held that the order was passed without giving the complainant an opportunity to explain his absence, and that the complainant's age (78 years) and the nature of the case (defamation) warranted a chance to proceed. The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and the complaint restored to the trial court for fresh disposal. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of acquittal under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, passed due to the complainant's absence, should be set aside and the complaint restored.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order of acquittal dated 30-4-2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gangakhed, in Summary Criminal Case No. 588/2007 is set aside. The complaint is restored to the file of the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The trial court is directed to expedite the hearing and dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Section 256 CrPC
- acquittal for non-appearance
- complainant's absence
- restoration of complaint
- opportunity of hearing
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 24
Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2014
Mr. Suresh W. Munde (for appellant), Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar (Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1), Mr. C.V. Thombre (for respondent nos.2 and 3), Mr. P.V. Balkhande (for respondent nos.4 and 5)
Govindrao s/o. Dasrao @ Devidasrao Ranisawargaonkar (Galakatu / Jahagirdar)
The State of Maharashtra, Prafulla s/o. Ajayrao Patil, Ajayrao s/o. Jagannath Patil, Bhagwan s/o. Gayaprasad Dube, Narhari s/o. Gopal Pujari (Gurav)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal under Section 256 CrPC for complainant's absence in a defamation case.
Remedy Sought
The appellant (original complainant) sought setting aside of the acquittal order and restoration of the complaint.
Filing Reason
The appellant was aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate due to his persistent absence.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gangakhed, by order dated 30-4-2013, acquitted the accused under Section 256 CrPC.
Issues
Whether the order of acquittal under Section 256 CrPC was justified given the complainant's absence and lack of interest.
Whether the complainant should be given an opportunity to proceed with the case.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant's counsel argued that the order was passed without giving the complainant an opportunity to explain his absence.
The respondents' counsel argued that the complainant had been persistently absent and showed no interest.
Ratio Decidendi
An order of acquittal under Section 256 CrPC should not be passed without giving the complainant an opportunity to explain his absence, especially when the complainant is aged and the case involves a serious allegation like defamation. The court must consider the circumstances and avoid a mechanical approach.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Magistrate observed that the complainant 'had not taken steps for securing presence of the accused persons'.
The Magistrate recorded that it appeared to him that the complainant (appellant) had no interest in proceeding further with the case.
Procedural History
The appellant filed a complaint for defamation under Section 500 IPC in Summary Criminal Case No. 588/2007 before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Gangakhed. Due to the appellant's persistent absence, the Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256 CrPC on 30-4-2013. The appellant then filed Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, which was admitted and taken up for final hearing on 8-1-2014.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 500
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 256
