The High Court allowed an appeal against a dismissal of a cheque dishonour complaint due to the complainant's absence. The court set aside the acquittal directed the Magistrate to summon the complainant again and expedite the trial.
Appellant summoned to appear on 19.12.2013; impugned judgment set aside; trial to be completed within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.12.2013
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN
CRL. A. (MD) No. 272 of 2013
Kannan
...Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
Muthumanikandan
..Respondent/Accused
Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgement dated 22.11.2012 made in S.T.C.No.409 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District.
For Appellant : Mr.Y.Prakash For Respondent : No appearance
J U D G E M E N T
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the complainant against judgement dated 22.11.2012 passed in S.T.C.No.409 of 2010 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District, acquitting the Respondent/accused under Section 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2
"Two constraints are imposed on the Court for exercising the power under Section 256. First is, if the court thinks that in a situation it is proper to adjourn the hearing, then the Magistrate shall not acquit accused. Second is, when the Magistrate considers that personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary on that day, the Magistrate has the power to dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. When the court must consider whether personal attendance of the complainant is essential on that day for the progress of the case and also whether the situation does not justify the case being adjourned to another date due to any other reason. If the situation does not justify the case being adjourned the court is free to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused. But, if the presence of the complaint on that date was quite unnecessary, then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint may not be proper exercise of power envisaged in the Section. The discretion must, therefore, be exercised judicially and fairly without impairing the cause of administration of criminal justice."
From the above said decision, it is clear that the proper course to be adopted by the learned Judicial Magistrate is that when the complaint has been taken up for hearing, if the complainant was not present before the Court, it is incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to issue a notice to the complainant and without issuance of such a notice, adopting the procedure of dismissing the complaint under Section 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not at all appreciable.
3
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(AE)
/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To:
ses
RL/3 c- 13/12/2013
CRL.A.NO.272 of 2013
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Magistrate is justified in acquitting an accused and dismissing a complaint solely due to the complainant's absence without issuing a notice to appear.
Whether the Magistrate ought to have adopted proper procedure by issuing notice to the complainant instead of dismissing the complaint under Section 256 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Associated Cement Co. Limited Vs. KeshavanandRelied on¶6
Associated Cement Co. Limited Vs. Keshavanand [1998Crl.LR-856]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kannan
Muthumanikandan
Aruna Jagadeesan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Aruna Jagadeesan
Parties & counsel