HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
SVP
SURAKSHA REALTY LIMITED THRO JAGDISH KHER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
(S.V. PINTO, J.)
1. The present application is filed by the applicant – original complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking leave to file an appeal against the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned 33rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahemedabad (N.I. Court) (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 39056 of 2017, whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the Criminal Case for want of prosecution as the applicant did not remain present under the provisions of Section 256 of Cr.P.C. and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - original accused came to be acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N I Act”).
1.1 The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts culled out from the memo of the present application as well as the record and proceedings are as under:
2.1 The applicant is the authorized person of a private company dealing in the business of investment in real estate, real
The absence of a party's advocate due to a bona fide mistake should not result in dismissal of a case, and courts must properly consider all evidence before making such decisions.
The absence of an advocate due to a bonafide mistake can justify reconsideration of a dismissal for want of prosecution under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
The trial court must consider all evidence before dismissing a case for absence, ensuring the right to a fair trial is upheld.
The court emphasized that a dismissal under Section 256 requires full consideration of all evidence on record, and failure to do so justifies allowing an appeal.
The court held that a bona fide absence of counsel can justify reconsideration of a dismissal for want of prosecution, emphasizing the need for proper evaluation of evidence.
Leave to appeal granted as trial court dismissed the case without considering the applicant's submitted documents and presence in another court.
The trial Court must consider the representation of the complainant by counsel before dismissing a case under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized that a complaint should not be dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant if represented by counsel, allowing for adjournment under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
A trial court's dismissal of a case for non-appearance of the complainant is improper if prior testimony has been recorded and an advocate is representing the complainant.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.