Complaint dismissed for procedural errors, High Court orders restoration and proceedings for accused.

The complaint was dismissed due to the absence of the complainant and counsel, nonbailable warrants for missing accused, and improper procedure by the Trial Court. The High Court found the Trial Court's actions to be incorrect, directing the Trial Court to restore the complaint against the respondents and proceed with the case for the available accused. The judgment emphasized the significance of adhering to legal procedures, safeguarding the rights of all parties, and upholding principles of natural justice.

---

---

Issues involved: Complaint dismissed for absence of complainant and counsel, nonbailable warrants for missing accused, improper procedure followed by Trial Court.

Issue 1: Complaint dismissal for absence of complainant and counsel
The petitioner was the complainant in a case registered for offenses u/s 114 and 135 of the Customs Act. The Trial Court dismissed the complaint on a day when both the complainant and counsel were absent. Despite the absence of accused Nos. 3 and 8, the Trial Court did not call upon the complainant to adduce evidence, but instead closed the case and cancelled bail bonds of other accused. This procedure was found to be contrary to the provisions for trial of warrant cases under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issue 2: Nonbailable warrants for missing accused
Out of nine accused in the case, accused Nos. 3 and 8 could not be secured by the Trial Court even after issuing nonbailable warrants from time to time. Due to the inability to secure these accused, the case against them was separated from the main proceedings.

Issue 3: Improper procedure followed by Trial Court
The Trial Court's decision to dismiss the complaint and cancel bail bonds without allowing the complainant to adduce evidence was deemed incorrect. The High Court held that the impugned order cannot be sustained and directed the Trial Court to restore the complaint against the respondents. It was further instructed that the Trial Court should proceed with the case in respect of the available accused, while acknowledging that one of the respondents, S.D. Kini, was reported to be deceased.

This judgment highlights the importance of following proper legal procedures, ensuring the rights of all parties involved in a case, and upholding the principles of natural justice even in the absence of certain accused individuals.

---