IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V.PINTO
Vimalbhai Bhagvanbhai Agrawal Proprietor Of Hariom Textile – 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 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the learned 5th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 18418 of 2022, whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the Criminal Case for want of prosecution as the appellant did not remain present under the provisions of Section 256 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “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 N I 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 appeal as well as the record and proceedings are as under:
2.1 The appellant is the proprietor of Hari Om Textiles and the accused is the proprietor of Vedant Fab and they both were into the business of fancy sarees and dress materia
M/s. BLS Infrastructure Limited Vs M/s. Rajwant Singh & Others
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 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.
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.
Trial courts should not automatically acquit accused based on the complainant's absence, especially when evidence has been presented, as the right to a fair trial requires proper consideration of cir....
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 trial Court must consider the representation of the complainant by counsel before dismissing a case under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
A complainant's absence does not automatically lead to acquittal if evidence is present; courts must exercise discretion to adjourn rather than dismiss cases.
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.
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.