2022 (9) TMI 3 - HC - Indian Laws

Company acquitted in cheque dishonor case due to appellant's absence in court

The Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted a Private Limited Company in a case against a partnership firm and its partner for dishonoring cheques due to the ... Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - lower court granted relief to the accused non-appearance of the complainant - Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT:- The provision of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly imposes a duty upon the Magistrate to proceed with the provisions of the said Section leading to acquittal of the accused if the complainant is found absent. It has been specifically provided in the said Section that unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day - In the present case learned Magistrate on three occasions thought it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to another day (without reasons). But on the date of dismissal i.e. 7th September, 2001 the learned Magistrate did not find any reason, which he thought proper, to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day (as the Section clearly provides) Learned Magistrate did not adjourn the case on the said date by recording specific reasons and justified his decision in his order relating to the conduct of the complainant on several occasions and proceeded to dismiss the case and finally acquitted the accused persons rightly, complying with the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - the order under appeal being in accordance with the provisions under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the learned Magistrate has recorded specific reasons justifying dismissal of the case and also applied judicial discretion to the facts and circumstances of the case before proceeding to acquit the accused persons under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by dismissing the case. Considering the conduct of the appellant/complainant before the Trial Court as also before this Court, (in a case of as old as 24 years), this Court is of the view that it seems that the appellant/complainant has lost interest in the appeal as also before the Trial Court and as such this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order/judgment of acquittal under appeal - Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Acquittal under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act by the Metropolitan Magistrate.2. Appellant's failure to appear in court leading to acquittal under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.Analysis:1. The appellant, a Private Limited Company, filed a case against a partnership firm and its partner for dishonoring cheques issued as payment for electric motors. The Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused due to the appellant's repeated absence in court. The appellant's advocate argued that the acquittal was erroneous and caused prejudice. The State panel supported the Magistrate's decision, citing the appellant's conduct. The Court analyzed Section 256 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for judicial discretion before acquitting based on the complainant's absence. It was noted that the Magistrate must give reasons if an adjournment is not granted. The Court differentiated this case from previous judgments, highlighting the Magistrate's multiple opportunities given to the appellant to present evidence. The Magistrate justified the acquittal based on the appellant's continuous absence and delay tactics, complying with Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.2. The Court upheld the Magistrate's decision, stating that the appellant's lack of interest was evident from their conduct over 24 years. The Court found no reason to interfere with the acquittal order, ultimately dismissing the appeal. The lower court records were to be sent back for information and further action if necessary. The judgment was to be provided to the parties upon request. The appellant's failure to appear in court led to the acquittal under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C., as per the legal provisions and judicial discretion exercised by the Magistrate.