IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V.PINTO
Kanakadurga Finance Limited Thro Ashwin Shrikant Patole – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
S.V. PINTO, J.
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – original complainant under Section 419 (4) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNSS ”) against the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 11631 of 2020, 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” in the rank and file 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, a finance company, had filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the N I Act as the
M/s. BLS Infrastructure Limited Vs M/s. Rajwant Singh & Others
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.
A complainant's absence does not automatically lead to acquittal if evidence is present; courts must exercise discretion to adjourn rather than dismiss cases.
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.
The absence of a complainant does not justify acquittal if evidence is already on record; courts must allow cases to proceed on merits.
Acquittal based solely on the complainant's absence is impermissible if evidence exists; courts must consider the merits of the case before dismissing for non-appearance.
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 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 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.
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....
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.