Criminal appeals filed by the complainant against acquittal of cheques dishonoured accused under Section 256 Cr.P.C. The single judge held the trial court correctly acquitted the accused due to complainant's non-appearance after multiple chances and dismissed the appeals.
Criminal appeals dismissed and order of acquittal of respondents confirmed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:18.02.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. MALA
Criminal Appeal Nos.560 and 567 of 2014
I.S.Ashok Kumar ...Appellant/Complainant
v.
B.C.Raman ...Respondent/Accused in Crl.A.No.560/2014
B.R.Manoharan ...Respondent/Accused in Crl.A.No.567/2014
Prayer:Criminal appeals filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., against the
judgment of acquittal dated 27.08.2014 in S.T.C.Nos.70 and 77 of 2013
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Fast Track Court,
Dharmapuri.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondent : Mr.P.Thilagan
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
The Criminal appeals arise out of the judgment of acquittal dated 27.08.2014 in S.T.C.Nos.70 and 77 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, acquitting the respondents/accused for non appearance of the appellant/complainant under Section 256 Cr.P.C.
2.The appellant as a complainant preferred private complaints against the respondents/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stating that the respondents/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively and to discharge the same, they issued cheques. When the cheques were presented before the Bank for encashment, they were returned as 'insufficient funds' on 30.03.2013. Therefore, the appellant sent statutory notice to the
accused and the same were returned as 'door locked'. Therefore, the appellant has preferred private complaints.
3.The trial Court has taken cognizance of an offence, after following the procedure and recording sworn statement. The trial Court dismissed the complaints due to non-appearance of the appellant/complainant by invoking Section 256 Cr.P.C. and acquitted the respondents/accused from the charges levelled against them, aggrieved over the same, the appellant/complainant preferred the appeals.
4.Heard both sides.
5.On perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, it reveals that after 13 chances had been given by the Court and more over several last chances also given, the complainant failed to appear before the Court. Hence, the trial Court in the interest of justice under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. dismissed the complaint for non appearance of the complainant.
6.At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract Section 256 Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:
"256. Non-appearance or death of complainant.
(1) If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day:
Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the complainant is due to his death. "
As per the above extract, if the presence of the complainant is necessary, the trial Court has discretion to dismiss the complaint if
the complainant did not appear before the Court. It is to be noted that the trial Court has given an opportunity to the complainant to put forth his case. Since the appellant/complainant did not appear before the trial Court, the trial Court by invoking Section 256 Cr.P.C. dismissed the complaints and acquitted the respondents/accused.
7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case along with the order passed by the trial Court, I am of the opinion, the trial Court has correctly acquitted the respondents/accused by invoking Section 256 Cr.P.C. So the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court does not suffer any infirmity or illegality and therefore, it is hereby confirmed. The Criminal Appeals deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, they are dismissed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kj To 1.The Judicial Magistrate's Court, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri. 2.-Do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri. 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 4.The Record keeper High Court, Madras. 2 CCs to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate SR.No. 9298 & 9297 Crl.A.Nos.560 and 567 of 2014 RSY (CO) PSI (13.03.2015)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of accused due to non-appearance of complainant under Section 256 Cr.P.C. was correct in law.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's order of acquittal based on the complainant's absence.
Whether the statutory notice requirements under Section 138 NI Act were waived due to non-appearance.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
I.S. Ashok Kumar
B.C. Raman
B.R. Manoharan
R. Mala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
