IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO
Nikhil Rameshbhai Mistri – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.V. PINTO, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – original complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Traffic), Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 33166 of 2019, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the Criminal Case for want of prosecution as the original complainant did not remain present under the provisions of Section 256 of Cr.P.C. and the original accused – respondent No. 2 herein came to be acquitted from the charge levelled against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act”). 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 appeal as well as the record and proceedings are as under:
2.1 The appellant is the proprietor of Samarth Industries and the accused had demanded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards which the appellant had issued cheque No.000009 dated 21.08.2019 of his account with UCO Bank, Vadodara
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 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.
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.
The trial court erred in dismissing a complaint for want of prosecution despite existing recorded evidence, violating procedural safeguards for the complainant's presence and representation.
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 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 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 court held dismissal of a criminal complaint for absence of the complainant is improper if evidence exists and representation is made, emphasizing the necessity for discretion under Section 256 o....
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.
Acquittal under Section 256 of Cr.P.C. is improper if the complainant has presented evidence, necessitating judicial discretion rather than automatic dismissal for non-appearance.
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.