Back
Judges : M.K.MUKHERJEE,K.T.THOMAS
Associated Cement Co.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Keshvanand - Respondent
Case No : Crl. No. 1239 of 1997
Decided On : 12/16/1997
Advocates Appeared :
Raju Ramachandran; For Appellant M.L. Bhat; For Respondent
S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Acquittal under S.247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - S.247 of the old Code - S.256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court discussed the interpretation and application of S.247 of the old Code and S.256 of the new Code, highlighting the constraints imposed on the court for exercising the power under the section and the practical implications of the complainant being a company or juristic person.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-company prosecuted the respondent under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court acquitted the respondent solely on the ground of the complainant's absence. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the acquittal. The respondent made irrelevant and mischievous imputations in the counter affidavit, which were later withdrawn.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate should not have acquitted the respondent under S.247 of the old Code. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of acquittal and the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Issues: The issues included the interpretation and application of S.247 of the old Code and S.256 of the new Code, the relevance of the complainant being a company, and the conduct of the respondent in the counter affidavit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the constraints imposed on the court for exercising the power under S.247 of the old Code and S.256 of the new Code, and the practical implications of the complainant being a company or juristic person.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of acquittal, and directed the prosecution to proceed from the stage where it reached before the order of acquittal was passed.
Key Points: - The court discusses the interpretation and application of S.247 of the old Code and S.256 of the new Code, focusing on constraints and practical implications for juristic complainants. (!) - The Magistrate should not have acquitted under S.247 of the old Code on the facts of this case; the prosecution should proceed from the stage before acquittal. (!) - A complainant being a company can be represented in court by a natural person; the de jure complainant is the company, and a de facto representative must be associated. (!) (!) - The difference between appeal and revision is essential; appellate jurisdiction reviews evidence within statutory limits, while revision is supervisory and limited to legality/propriety. (!) (!) (!) - S.200 examination of the complainant on oath is mandatory; absence of the complainant on the date of hearing can lead to dismissal/acquittal only if justified under the provisions, and the court must exercise discretion judicially. (!) (!) - The decision emphasizes that a juristic complainant may be represented by others, and absence of the corporeal complainant can be accommodated by permitting another representative. (!) (!)
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant - company has been prosecuting the respondent in the court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Jammu, alleging the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent on 14.3.1996 solely on the ground that the complainant was absent. Appellant-company filed an appeal in challenge of the said order of acquittal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir with leave but that appeal was dismissed. This appeal is against the said judgment of the High Court.
3. The complaint was based on a cheque issued by the respondent towards amounts allegedly due from him ranging to a little above eight lacs of rupees. Facts, which are not disputed for the present appeal, show that appellant - company was represented in the trial court by one Puneet Aggarwal with a power of attorney of the company. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, and after examining Puneet Aggarwal on oath, issued summons to the respondent pursuant to which he appeared in court. As the trial proceeded, Puneet Aggarwal and another person were examined as prosecution witnesses and the case was posted for further evidence to 23.8.1996. On that day the complaint was absent and the counsel for the accused pressed for dismissal of the complainant. However the Magistrate posted the case to the next day, but on that day also the complainant and his counsel were absent. Then the Magistrate recorded the order of acquittal of the accused under S.247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (which is applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir even now. It is hereinafter be referred to as the 'old Code').
4. In the appeal petition filed before the High Court it was stated that Puneet Aggarwal was posted as an officer of the appellant company at Jammu during the period when the complaint was filed, but subsequently he was transferred to Jallandhar (in Punjab State), the advocate of the complainant (Sri. K.S. Johal) faced a misfortune in his family as his brother was involved in a motor accident on 23.8.1996 and was subjected to an operation, and due to such circumstances Sri. J.S. Johal could not attend the Court for three days preceding 25.8.1996. It was also mentioned in the appeal petition that the aforesaid Puneet Aggarwal had in fact left Jallandhar for attending the court at Jammu on 23.8.1996, but he could not reach Jammu as motor traffic on the National Highway became paralysed due to incessant rains which lashed the region continuously for 2 days, and that Puneet Aggarwal never knew that the case was posted to next day and hence his absence on 24.8.1996 was absolutely unintentional.
5. Learned single judge of the High Court did not take into account any of the above facts and was not persuaded to interfere with the acquittal as he adopted a "grammatical construction" of S.247 of the old Code in the following words:
"On a grammatical construction of S.247 the intention of the Legislature becomes clear. Non-appearance of the complainant, after summons are issued, according to that intention, may result in acquittal of the accused."
6. On the above premise learned single judge found that there was no legal error in the order passed by the Magistrate and hence dismissed the appeal.
7. Before we proceed to consider the merits of this appeal we may refer to a strange averment made by the respondent in the counter affidavit sworn to by him which he has filed in this court in answer to the special leave petition. After replying to various grounds, the respondent has stated, with reference to paragraph F of the special leave petition the following:
"In reply to sub-para F it is submitted that a false complaint was filed against the Respondent at the behest of one Mr. Kanwar Sein Anand, who is Forwarding and Clearing Agent of the petitioner company. The said gentleman claims to be a real brother of an Hon'ble Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court and is exploiting the name of the Hon'ble Judge
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
