Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1982 (HP)

Gorsi Construction Pvt Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar

2016-09-16

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan J : Heard. By the medium of this application, appellant has sought condonation of delay of 55 days i.e. crept in filing of the appeal. Though the application has vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, however, I find that there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay as has been spelt out in para 3 of the application. Moreover, the application is duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application disposed of. Cr.MP(M) No. 753 of 2016 2. Leave to appeal granted. Appeal be registered. Cr. Appeal No.426 of 2016 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.2.2016, whereby complaint filed by the appellant came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Magistrate and further ordered the statutory acquittal of the accused/respondent. 4. The impugned order reads thus: “25.2.2016 Present: None. Case called again and again none has appeared on behalf of complaint. Let be called after lunch. Sd/- Present: None. Case called repeatedly but none appeared on behalf of complainant. Today case was fixed for filing PF and CA and summon to accused, but despite having knowledge of the date of the hearing neither complainant nor his counsel appear. Hence this court is of view that complainant conduct does not deserve any further leniency. It is not a fit case to call through fresh notice, accordingly appreciating his conduct and also being the right of speedy trial of accused which is also fundamental right. This court is of a considered opinion that it is a fit case where for want of non appearance of complainant, complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed under Section 256 of Cr.P.C for non appearance. Statutory acquittal is announced in favour of accused. File after due completion be consigned to record room.” 5. Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads thus: “256. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed under Section 256 of Cr.P.C for non appearance. Statutory acquittal is announced in favour of accused. File after due completion be consigned to record room.” 5. Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads thus: “256. Non- appearance or death of complainant (1) If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day: Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. (2) The provisions of sub- section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the nonappearance of the complainant is due to his death. 6. It is evident from the aforesaid order that the case was listed for filing of process fee and correct address of the accused, but the learned trial court has not at all come to the conclusion that presence of the complainant on the said date was absolutely essential and has straightaway dismissed the application by invoking the provisions of Section 256 of Cr.PC. 7. Furthermore, the learned trial Magistrate has not even recorded its satisfaction as to why it was dismissing the complaint and in such circumstances mainly by holding that ‘this court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where for want of non appearance of complainant, complaint is liable to be dismissed.”, would not suffice. 8. Acquittal of the accused under this section is not automatic. It cannot be said that this section contemplates that the order of acquittal should be a matter of routine and followed automatically on the absence of the complainant. There has to be an application of mind to the question as to whether the order of acquittal under the aforesaid section should be passed. 9. It cannot be said that this section contemplates that the order of acquittal should be a matter of routine and followed automatically on the absence of the complainant. There has to be an application of mind to the question as to whether the order of acquittal under the aforesaid section should be passed. 9. When the court notices that the complainant is absent on a particular day, it is imperative for the court to see whether personal attendance of the complainant is essential on that date and also whether the situation does not justify the case being adjourned. On account of singular default in appearance on the part of complainant, dismissal of the complaint would not be proper and can also be termed as arbitrary. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 25.2.2016 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly set aide. Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The parties through their counsels are directed to cause appearance before the court below on 5.10.2016. Petition disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any.