The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of exercising judicial discretion and considering the potential adverse consequences for the complainant in dismissing complaints under Section 256(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

JUDGMENT :

1. The Criminal Appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.303 of 2016 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Eluru (for short, “the trial Court”) whereby the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I. Act”) by the appellant against the 2nd respondent for the dishonour of cheque issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt, was dismissed and accused was acquitted on account of the absence of the complainant on the date of hearing.

2. Heard Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State. Despite the service of notice on the 2nd respondent/accused, he did not appear either in person or counsel representing on his behalf.

3. The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.303 of 2016 before the trial Court. He filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the 2nd respondent herein, accused in the said case, on the ground that the Cheque issued for Rs.11,00,000/- on 20.04.2015 by the 2nd respondent towards the discharge of legally enforceable debt was dishonoured.

4. As seen from the order dated 17.03.2017, the trial Court noticed that the complainant did not comply with the earlier order dated 03.03.2017. On 04.11.2016, the complainant filed his chief affidavit by paying costs of Rs.200/-. The trial Court directed the complainant to attend on 21.04.2017 by passing a conditional order indicating the dismissal of the complaint, in case of failure of the complainant to attend before the Court.

5. The learned counsel representing the appellant/complainant submits that the complainant promptly attended the trial Court except on 21.04.2017, but the appellant counsel reached the trial Court a little bit late on that day, in the meantime, the case was called, and dismissed for default. The impugned order passed by the trial Court, is extracted as under :

“The case was called on for hearing today to which it had been posted.

The accused is absent. The petition is filed and allowed. The complainant is absent. No representation. The complainant failed to comply with the docket order dated 17.03.2017. Costs not paid. It shows that the complainant has no interest in proceeding with the matter further. Hence, the complaint is dismissed, and the accused is acquitted under Section 256 of Cr.P.C.”

6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal passed under Section 256 Cr.P.C., the complainant preferred the present appeal.

7. In the circumstances pleaded, the question is whether the trial Court is justified in invoking the provisions of Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. and dismissing the complaint.

POINT:

8. It is settled law that the primary objective of the court should be to uphold justice, but not to deny it. It's essential to recognize that there could be a multitude of valid reasons for the complainant's absence when the case is called. When a case is scheduled for evidence recording, it would be better course to pass over the matter without immediately resorting to invoking Section 256(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) solely based on the complainant's failure to appear in the Court Hall. Various factors might contribute to their inability to be present in court or to reach the court in time. There may also be instances where the complainant's counsel could not attend court due to prior engagements or other reasons. While it's the responsibility of the counsel to ensure representation, it's important to acknowledge that a valid case should not be dismissed solely due to the counsel's errors or oversights. The impugned judgment does not show that it positively accommodated the complainant's counsel by passing over the matter.

9. It is apposite to refer to a decision reported in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand, (1998) 1 SCC 687, the purpose of inserting a provision like Section 256 of the Code was discussed, and in