Back
M. K. THAKKER
Partner Of Jay Plastic Manoj Ghanshyambhai Sajnani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. K. Thakker, J.
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 5634 of 2023
As this Court is deciding the main matter on merits, the leave is granted to prefer an appeal and this application is disposed of accordingly.
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 781 of 2023
1. With the consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. This appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara below Exh. 1 in Old Criminal Case No.3707 of 2006 which was renumbered as Criminal Case No.41643 of 2006 dated 22.10.2021 dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution by exercising the powers under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is having the factory of manufacturing plastic granules. The complainant is doing the job work and the accused was visiting the factory of the complainant for doing the job work of the plastic granules. It is the case of the complainant that for the payment on the job work, cheque bearing Cheque No.656624 dated 13.3.2006 for the amount of Rs.24,080/- and Cheque No.
The court upheld the dismissal of a complaint for non-prosecution, emphasizing the need for timely justice and the consequences of a complainant's repeated absence.
The court emphasized that acquittal under Section 256 of the Code should not occur solely due to the complainant's absence when evidence is on record, highlighting the need for judicial discretion.
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.
A single absence of the complainant should not lead to dismissal of a complaint, as it may result in failure of justice.
The court emphasized the necessity of a complainant's presence in cases governed by Section 256 of the CrPC and the inappropriate dismissal of cases where evidence has already been presented.
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 trial Court must consider the representation of the complainant by counsel before dismissing a case under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
Dismissal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. requires due consideration of evidence on record, and non-appearance of the complainant should not automatically result in acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for judicial and fair exercise of discretion by the court, the principle of natural justice, and the need to provide parties with t....
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
