HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
S.V. PINTO, J
RK BIOFEED EQUIPMENTS THRO KAPILKUMAR CHAMANSINH – Appellant
Versus
ELINA SOLUTION PVT LTD – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present application is filed by the applicant – original complainant under Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking leave to file an appeal against the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Halol (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 1071 of 2021, 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. 1 to 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. 1 to 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 respondent No. 1 is company and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are authorized officers of the company and they had purchased machinery for a total amount of Rs.6
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 trial court must consider all evidence before dismissing a case for absence, ensuring the right to a fair trial is upheld.
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.
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 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 a complainant does not justify acquittal if evidence is already on record; courts must allow cases to proceed on merits.
Dismissal of a case for non-appearance of the complainant is inappropriate if there is evidence on record; courts must exercise discretion to ensure justice.
A trial court's dismissal of a case for non-appearance must consider the presence of evidence, and acquittals should not be issued simply due to complainant absence when represented by counsel.
Absence of the complainant does not automatically necessitate dismissal; Trial Court must consider existing evidence before acquitting under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
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.
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.