Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SANJEEVA ROW NAIDU
Public Prosecutor (A.P.) - Appellant
Versus
T.S.Prasad - Respondent
Decided On : 07-07-59
Section 247 - Absence of Complainant - The court discussed the application of Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows the Magistrate to acquit the accused if the complainant does not appear, and highlighted the conditions that must be fulfilled before taking action under this section. The court emphasized that the section does not justify the acquittal of an accused merely because the complainant happens to be temporarily absent when the case is called, and stressed the importance of justifiable reasons for adjourning the hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an Assistant Inspector of Labour, attended the court for a hearing but was temporarily absent to have his lunch. The Sub-Magistrate, in his absence, called the case and acquitted the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing that the complainant had appeared in court and provided justifiable reasons for his temporary absence. It directed the lower court to hear and dispose of the case according to law.
Issues: The validity and justification of the Magistrate's order under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The section does not justify the acquittal of an accused merely because the complainant happens to be temporarily absent when the case is called, and the Magistrate must ensure there are no justifiable reasons to adjourn the hearing.
Final Decision: The acquittal of the accused was set aside, and the lower court was directed to hear and dispose of the case according to law.
( 1 ) THIS is a State appeal against the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Pithapuram, who, acting under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, acquitted the accused.
( 2 ) IT is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the case was posted for hearing to 5-3-1958, which was a public holiday being the Holi festival day, but nevertheless the complainant, who was the Assistant Inspector of Labour attended the Court at 11 Oclock the usual hour, but he was informed by the Clerk of the Court that the Magistrate had gone on camp and he was not likely to come back for some time and accordingly the complainant went to have his mid-day meal at one Oclock, having informed the clerk of the court that he would be returning by half past one. Apparently, the Sub-Magistrate returned from camp, attended the Court during the interval, called the case and acquitted the accused throwing out the complaint
( 3 ) THE question for consideration is, whether the order of the Magistrate is valid and is justified.
( 4 ) SECTION 247, Criminal Procedure Code is as follows: "if the summons has been issued on complaint, and upon 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 herein before contained acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day: Provided that 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 tile case. " This section applies to a case of a private complaint. The following conditions must be fulfilled before action could be taken under Section 247, Criminal P. C. , by a Magistrate to acquit the accused for the absence of the complainant. (1) The proceedings must have ensued on a private complaint; (2) The complainant should not have appeared before the Court on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused or on a subsequent day to which the hearing may he adjourned; (3) There should not be proper reasons justifying the adjournment of the hearing to some other day.
( 5 ) IT may be regarded as obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to acquit the accused under Section 247 Criminal P. C. , when the Magistrate is-satisfied that the complainant did not appear at ell and that there were no justifiable or proper reasons to adjourn the hearing. In the nature of things, the section cannot apply to a casual absence of the complainant. In all cases, where the complainant appears in the court on the day of the hearing, this section does not apply at all. It is only when the complainant does not appear at all during the court hours, on the day of bearing, that the Magistrate could take upon himself the responsibility of throwing out a case and acquitting the accused. The section does not justify the acquittal of an accused merely because the complainant happens to be absent when the case is called. Such absence may, in most cases, be due to justifiable cause. Having come to court, the complainant might have gone to take a cup of coffee or to answer the call of nature or to take his meal. Such temporary absence from Court after the complainant had appeared gives no jurisdiction for the Magistrate to take action under section 247, Criminal P. C. The words "does not appear" have only one meaning in the context, that is the failure to appear must have been during the working hours of the Court. Even in such a case, the Magistrate is bound to satisfy himself that there are no justifiable reasons to adjourn the hearing of the case.
( 6 ) THERE is a frequent tendency among Magistrates to take action under Section 247, Criminal P. C. , by ordering acquittal of the accused even when the complainant was temporarily absent from the court premises. Criminal Courts are established to try offences, punish
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
