Back
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Jayeshbhai Bavanjibhai Solanki – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hemant M. Prachchhak
1. In compliance of the order passed by this Court 7.10.2024, the accused is present before this Court with an undertaking dated 9.10.2024 and the said undertaking is taken on record along with report dated 9.10.2024 submitted by learned APP.
2. Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent accused has identified respondent accused - his client, who is present before this Court. With consent of the parties the Appeal is taken for its final adjudication today.
3. The appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 1.3.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 2437 of 2020, whereby the respondent-original accused No. 2 was acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, (hereinafter be referred to as "the N.I. Act").
4. The appellant herein is original complainant and the respondent No. 2 is the original accused in Criminal Case No. 2437/2020. As per the appellant the Criminal Case was fi
The court emphasized that cases should be decided on merits rather than technicalities, restoring the complaint for fresh adjudication after the trial Court's dismissal for non-appearance.
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 ....
The absence of a complainant's advocate does not justify automatic dismissal of a case if evidence is on record and the accused is avoiding service.
The main legal point established is the discretion of the court to adjourn the hearing and the emphasis on deciding cases on merits with a judicial approach rather than dismissing them for default.
A single absence of the complainant should not lead to dismissal of a complaint, as it may result in failure of justice.
The dismissal of a complaint under Section 256 for non-appearance is improper if evidence is recorded, emphasizing the need for trial on merits to avoid undue acquittal.
The importance of ensuring natural justice and giving both parties an opportunity to present their evidence, even in cases of non-appearance, and the need to avoid technical dismissals.
Judicial discretion must be exercised in dismissing complaints for non-appearance, as personal attendance is not always required.
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
