Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Acquittal in Negotiable Instruments Act Case — Magistrate Erred in Acquitting Accused for Complainant's Absence When Advocate Was Present. The court held that the presence of the complainant's advocate was sufficient to proceed under Section 256 CrPC, and the acquittal was not justified.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 83
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, a partnership firm, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against respondent nos.2 and 3. The respondent no.2 is a proprietary concern of which respondent no.3 is the proprietor. The Magistrate issued process, and respondent no.3 appeared for herself and on behalf of respondent no.2. Subsequently, respondent no.3 remained absent and her exemption application was rejected on 23rd January 2012. A non-bailable warrant was issued but remained unexecuted. On 3rd January 2013, the complainant was present with his advocate, but the accused were absent. The Magistrate adjourned the matter to 22nd March 2013, observing that the complainant failed to take proper steps for securing the presence of the accused. On 22nd March 2013, the complainant was absent but his advocate was present. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. The complainant appealed. The High Court granted leave and treated the application as an appeal. The court held that the Magistrate erred in acquitting the accused under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the advocate was present and ready to proceed. The court set aside the acquittal and remanded the matter for fresh trial.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Acquittal for Default - Section 256 CrPC - Presence of Advocate - The Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256 CrPC when the complainant was absent but his advocate was present. The High Court held that the Magistrate erred in not considering that the advocate's presence was sufficient to proceed, and the acquittal was not justified. (Paras 8-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the complainant was absent but his advocate was present and ready to proceed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Leave granted. Application treated as Memo of Appeal. Appeal allowed. Impugned order of acquittal set aside. Matter remanded to the trial court for fresh trial in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
  • 1881
  • acquittal for default of complainant
  • presence of advocate
  • duty of Magistrate to proceed under Section 256 CrPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015:BHC-AS:2362

Criminal Application No.359 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal No....... of 2015

2015-01-27

Abhay M. Thipsay

2015:BHC-AS:2362

Mr.Jatin P. Shah for applicant, Mrs.S.V.Gajare APP for Respondent State

Govindji Trikamdas and Co

The State of Maharashtra & ors

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

Leave to file appeal against acquittal and setting aside of acquittal order

Filing Reason

The Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256 CrPC when the complainant was absent but his advocate was present

Previous Decisions

The Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused on 22nd March 2013

Issues

Whether the Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 256 CrPC when the complainant was absent but his advocate was present

Submissions/Arguments

The complainant's advocate was present and ready to proceed, so the Magistrate should not have acquitted the accused

Ratio Decidendi

The presence of the complainant's advocate is sufficient to proceed under Section 256 CrPC, and the Magistrate erred in acquitting the accused for default of appearance when the advocate was present and ready to proceed.

Judgment Excerpts

The learned Magistrate then adjourned the matter to 22nd March 2013 with the following observation: 'complainant failed to take proper steps for securing presence of accused' On 22nd March 2013, the Magistrate passed an order of acquittal which reads as under: 'complainant absent. His advocate present. Accused absent. Complaint is dismissed and accused is acquitted'.

Procedural History

Complaint filed under Section 138 NI Act. Process issued. Accused appeared. Subsequently accused absent. Non-bailable warrant issued but unexecuted. On 3rd January 2013, complainant present with advocate, accused absent; matter adjourned to 22nd March 2013. On 22nd March 2013, complainant absent, advocate present; Magistrate dismissed complaint and acquitted accused. Complainant filed Criminal Application for leave to appeal. High Court granted leave and heard appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 256
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Acquittal in Negotiable Instruments Act Case — Magistrate Erred in Acquitting Accused for Complainant's Absence When Advocate Was Present. The court held that the presence of the complainant's advocate was su...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Tender Cancellation in DMICDC Project — Upholds Right of Tenderer to Withdraw Before Acceptance Under Section 5 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.