Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shriman Kisanlalji Sarda Pratishthan, was the original complainant in Regular Criminal Case No.100 of 1995 filed against respondent nos.2 and 3 (the accused). The Judicial Magistrate First Class, by an order dated 20th March 2006, acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, on the ground that the complainant and his advocate were absent when the matter was called several times, no application was on record, and no steps were taken. The matter was old, filed in 1995, and had been kept for D.I.D. on various occasions without positive steps by the complainant. Aggrieved by this order of acquittal, the complainant filed the present appeal before the High Court. The High Court heard the counsel for the appellant, the counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The court noted that the Magistrate's order was passed without giving any opportunity to the complainant to explain his absence. The High Court held that the Magistrate ought to have considered granting an adjournment or at least given a notice to the complainant before dismissing the complaint in default. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the case was restored to the file of the Magistrate with a direction to restore the complaint to its original number and proceed in accordance with law. The court also directed the Magistrate to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Acquittal for Default - Section 256(1) CrPC - Magistrate's Discretion - The Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) CrPC solely because the complainant and his advocate were absent on the date of hearing. The High Court held that the Magistrate ought to have considered granting an adjournment or at least given a notice to the complainant before dismissing the complaint in default. The order of acquittal was set aside and the case was restored to the file of the Magistrate for fresh disposal. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Restoration of Complaint - Section 256(1) CrPC - Opportunity of Hearing - The High Court observed that the Magistrate's order was passed without giving any opportunity to the complainant to explain his absence. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the Magistrate was directed to restore the complaint to its original number and proceed in accordance with law. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused under Section 256(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, without giving the complainant an opportunity to be heard or considering the possibility of adjournment.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20th March 2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Regular Criminal Case No.100 of 1995 is quashed and set aside. The case is restored to the file of the Magistrate with a direction to restore the complaint to its original number and proceed in accordance with law. The Magistrate is directed to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Section 256(1) CrPC
- acquittal for default
- discretion of magistrate
- opportunity of hearing
- restoration of complaint
