Section 256 CrPC cannot be applied mechanically once a summons trial reaches the defence stage

In a summons case, the power to acquit in default under Section 256 CrPC should not be invoked mechanically when the prosecution evidence has closed and the matter has reached the defence-evidence stage. The complainant's absence will not justify termination of the trial unless his presence is necessary for continuation of the proceedings. If additional evidence is required, the accused may seek relief under Section 311 CrPC. The document also notes that the challenge to the manner in which the High Court heard the matter did not warrant relief under Article 136.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Magistrate's acquittal under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and whether interference was warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 256 empowers acquittal in default where the complainant does not appear, but its exercise depends on the stage and circumstances of the summons case. Here, the prosecution evidence had closed, the matter had reached the stage of defence evidence, and the complainant's presence was not shown to be necessary for continuation of the trial. The accused could seek appropriate relief under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if further evidence was required. The Court also noted that the challenge to the manner in which the High Court heard the matter did not justify grant of relief in the appeal.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the Magistrate's acquittal was not approved, but the appeal was not entertained under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal order was not restored by appellate intervention, and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a summons case, the power under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should not be invoked mechanically when the case has reached the defence stage and the complainant's presence is not essential for the continuation of the proceedings.

---