2022 (5) TMI 1111 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - acquittal of the accused - complainant under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - It is ascertained that acquittal of the accused on the absence of the complainant under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not automatic. The court must apply its judicial discretion to the facts and circumstances of the case where it is expedient for the court to acquit the accused under Section 256(1) of the Code. Having gone through the impugned order, the approach of the learned court was clearly erroneous and not in accordance with law. On the date of passing of the impugned order the accused was represented under Section 205 of the Code and he was physically absent. The learned Magistrate passed the order of dismissal of the case without forming any opinion that there is no good reason to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other date. The learned Magistrate has also not recorded any finding justifying dismissal of the case. The case was dismissed because the complainant failed to submit any application showing cause of his absence on the previous date. Absence of judicial discretion is apparent on the face of record. Because the learned Magistrate did not assign any reason in support of the requirement that it is not proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other date. This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 10th April, 2018 is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Acquittal under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to non-appearance of the complainant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a proprietorship firm, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which was registered as Case No.C-79 of 2010. The case was transferred to the 3rd Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata. The accused pleaded not guilty, and the trial was fixed for recording evidence. However, on subsequent dates, the complainant was absent without any step, leading to the accused being acquitted under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal challenges this order of acquittal.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the court must exercise judicial discretion before passing an order of acquittal under Section 256. The court should ascertain that there is no justifiable reason to adjourn the hearing before invoking Section 256. The appellant contended that the Magistrate mechanically passed the order without considering the complainant's previous diligence in attending hearings. Reference was made to previous court decisions to support this argument.

3. The appellant further argued that the Magistrate failed to consider the necessity of the complainant's presence on the date of acquittal. The court should assess if the complainant's appearance is crucial for case progress before acquitting the accused. The appellant cited a Supreme Court decision to support this contention.

4. Referring to legal precedents, the appellant emphasized the importance of the Magistrate's discretion in acquitting the accused under Section 256. The Magistrate should evaluate the grounds for acquittal carefully before passing such an order.

5. The respondent's counsel defended the trial court's decision, stating that the complainant's repeated absences without steps justified the order of acquittal under Section 256. The counsel argued that the trial court's findings were not manifestly erroneous and should not be disturbed on appeal unless palpably wrong.

6. The respondent's counsel referred to legal principles and court decisions to support the argument that appellate courts should not interfere with trial court acquittals unless there is perversity in the findings or illegality in the decision. The counsel emphasized the importance of upholding trial court decisions unless they are entirely unsustainable.

7. After considering arguments from both sides and reviewing relevant legal precedents, the High Court concluded that the trial court's approach in acquitting the accused was erroneous. The court found that the Magistrate failed to exercise judicial discretion and did not provide valid reasons for dismissing the case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal.

8. As a result of the detailed analysis, the High Court allowed the appeal without costs and directed the Magistrate to expedite the case's disposal in accordance with the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of judicial discretion and proper reasoning in decisions related to acquittal under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.