HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
SVP
RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LIMITED THRO KIRANSINH NARPATSINH PRANKDA – 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 15.12.2022 passed by the learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajpipla (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 496 of 2019, 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(3) of Cr.P.C. and the respondent No. 2 - original accused came to be acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act”).
1.1 The respondent No. 2 is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he 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 a finance company and the accused has taken a vehicle loan for Rs.2,20,000/- for the vehicle registration No. GJ-20-T-3705 on 16.07.201
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 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 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.
Leave to appeal granted as trial court dismissed the case without considering the applicant's submitted documents and presence in another court.
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 trial Court must consider the representation of the complainant by counsel before dismissing a case 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 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.
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.