Complaint restoration for single non-appearance where sufficient cause was shown, making dismissal and acquittal unsustainable.

A complaint should not be dismissed for a single non-appearance when sufficient cause for the absence is shown and the default is isolated. The complainant's explanation that the hearing date was wrongly noted was not disbelieved, so a rigid approach to dismissal and acquittal was unwarranted. The Magistrate and High Court adopted an unduly strict view that caused failure of justice. The dismissal of the complaint and the acquittal were therefore unsustainable, and restoration of the complaint was ordered so the matter could proceed before the trial court in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint could be dismissed and the accused acquitted for the complainant's single absence when sufficient cause for the absence was shown, and whether the complaint should be restored.

Analysis: The complainant's absence occurred on one date only, and the explanation that the date had been wrongly noted was not disbelieved. A complaint in such circumstances should not be dismissed on a rigid approach, particularly when the default is isolated and sufficient cause is established. The Magistrate and the High Court adopted an unduly strict view that resulted in failure of justice.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the complaint and the acquittal were unsustainable, and restoration of the complaint was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The complaint was restored and the matter was directed to proceed before the trial court in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint should not be dismissed for a single non-appearance when sufficient cause for the absence is shown and the circumstances do not justify a rigid denial of restoration.

---