2008 (4) TMI 814 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Reinstates Acquittal, Emphasizes Right to Speedy Trial and Respect for Judicial Discretion in Absence Cases.

S. Rama Krishna Versus S. Rami Reddy (D) by his Lrs. and Ors.

The SC set aside the HC's judgment, which had overturned the Magistrate's acquittal of the appellant under Section 256 of the CrPC. The SC found that the ... Order of acquittal passed on non-appearance or death of the complainant - Power of Jurisdiction of magistrate U/s 256 of CrPC - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 256(1) mandate the Magistrate to acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case. If an exceptional course is to be adopted, it must be spelt out the discretion conferred upon the learned Magistrate, however, must be exercised with great care and caution. The conduct of the complainant for the said purpose is of immense significance. He cannot allow a case to remain pending for an indefinite period. Appellant had been attending the court for a long time, except on some dates where when remained absent or was otherwise represented by his Advocate. He had to remain present in court. He attended the court on not less than 20 occasions after the death of the original complainant. If in the aforementioned situation, the learned Magistrate exercised his discretionary jurisdiction, the same, in our opinion, should not have been ordinarily interfered with. The High Court failed to take into consideration the fact that it was dealing with an order of acquittal and, thus, the principle of law which was required to be applied was that, if two views are possible, a judgment of acquittal should not ordinarily be interfered with. There exists a distinction between a civil case and a criminal case. Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused. The orders passed by the competent court of law as also the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure must be construed having regard to the Constitutional scheme and the legal principles in mind. The High Court, in our opinion, therefore, misdirected itself in passing the impugned judgment. It can therefore not be sustained. We set aside the order of the High Court accordingly. The Appeal is allowed. Issues:- Acquittal by Magistrate under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure- Validity of High Court's judgment setting aside the acquittal- Exercise of jurisdiction by Magistrate under Section 256(1)- Discretion of Magistrate in passing order of acquittal- High Court's jurisdiction under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure- Principle of judgment of acquittal in criminal casesAnalysis:The case involved the appellant issuing two cheques which were dishonored, leading to a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the complainant's death, the respondents sought substitution in the case. The Magistrate acquitted the appellant under Section 256 of the CrPC due to the complainant's prolonged absence. The High Court set aside this acquittal, prompting the appeal. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in disregarding the complainant's absence as justification for acquittal. The respondents did not actively pursue their substitution applications.The Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 256(1) was crucial. The court noted the complainant's prolonged absence and the lack of seriousness in pursuing the case. The Magistrate properly exercised discretion in acquitting the appellant, considering the case's long pendency and the respondents' inaction. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 378(4) was to be limited in appeals against acquittals, yet it set aside the acquittal without sufficient legal basis.The High Court's judgment was criticized for overlooking the importance of acquittal orders and failing to consider the distinction between civil and criminal cases. The judgment of acquittal should not be interfered with lightly, especially when two views are possible. The right to a speedy trial for the accused was highlighted, emphasizing the need to interpret legal provisions in line with Constitutional principles. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment to be erroneous and set it aside, allowing the appeal.