Complaint dismissal as acquittal bars revision when special leave to appeal is the proper remedy
Dismissal of a complaint for the complainant's non-appearance under Section 256(1) of the Code operated as an acquittal where the Magistrate did not adjourn the matter. In a complaint case, the proper challenge to that acquittal was an application for special leave to appeal under Section 378(4), and not revision. Because an appeal remedy was available, Section 401(4) barred the complainant from pursuing revision. The revisional order setting aside the Magistrate's dismissal was therefore held unsustainable and was quashed.
Issues: Whether dismissal of a complaint under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 amounted to an acquittal so as to attract the remedy of special leave to appeal under Section 378(4), and consequently bar a revision at the instance of the complainant under Section 401(4).
Analysis: An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is triable summarily and, by virtue of Section 143, the procedure applicable to summons cases under the Code applies as far as may be. Section 256(1) mandates acquittal of the accused where the complainant does not appear on the appointed date unless the Magistrate considers adjournment proper. The dismissal of the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant therefore operated as an acquittal. In a case instituted upon complaint, the proper remedy against such acquittal was an application for special leave to appeal before the High Court under Section 378(4). Since that remedy was available, Section 401(4) prohibited revision at the instance of the complainant.
Conclusion: The revision before the Sessions Court was not maintainable and the order setting aside the Magistrate's dismissal could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The High Court held that the complainant's proper remedy lay in special leave to appeal against the acquittal, not in revision, and consequently quashed the revisional order.
Ratio Decidendi: When a complaint is dismissed for the complainant's non-appearance and the dismissal amounts to an acquittal under Section 256(1), the complainant cannot invoke revision if an appeal lies under Section 378(4), because Section 401(4) bars revisional proceedings in such circumstances.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
