Law Commission Report
Need For Amending The Law As Regards Power Of Courts To Restore Criminal ...
14lsT
REPORT
CHVO
NEED FOR ANIEN DING THE LAY' i{kl(i.-XRDS POWER OF COURTS
TO RESTORE CRIMlI'\'AL §{l';\"iHiON.AL APPLICATIONS
AND CRIMINAL CASES DISNIISSED FOR DEFAULT
IN .U'PEARANCE
'real
fife amfiar
LAW COMMISSION
'Mia' ¥T'{'fw'I"{
GOVERNMENT or INDIA
arm vmr
SHASTRI BHAWAN.
JUITI I . .
C M P THAKKAR fifi F
Clsairman
D. 0. No. 7 (8)/91--I_€(LS). July 31., 1991-
To
Shri K. Vijay Bhaskar Reddy,
Minister of Law, Justice
and Company Affairs,
Government of India,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi.
Dear Minister,
Re : Presentation of 141st Report of the Commifliion.
In order to foreclose likely injustice in the course of administratiui
of justice and in order to resolve conflicting views of two sets of Hifi
Courts on a vital matter a suo motu exercise was undertaken by the
Commission which has resulted in the 141st Report being presentefl
herewith encaptioned :-
"NEED FOR AMENDING THE LAW AS REGARDS
POWER OF COURTS TO RESTORE CRIMINAL REVISIGNAL
APPLICATIONS AND CRIMINAL CASES DISMISSED
FOR DEFAULT IN APPEARANCE"
By the very nature of the issue involved, the matter is one of' '
importance as well as of urgency. It is, therefore, hoped that it will
receive the early attention it deserves at your end.
Yours faithfully,
(M. P. THAKKAR)
Encl .' 141:! Report.
Copy to Sh. P. R. Kumaramangalam, Minister of State for Law, Justice as-
Company Affairs, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
CONTENT S
CHAPTER 1 Introductory . .
CHAPTER II Statutory Provisions
CHAPTER III Judicial Decisions as to dismissal for default of Criminal matters .
CHAPTER IV Position in relation to dismissal for default of maintenance cases and
the restoration thereof
CHAPTER V Position in regard to aequittal in the context of complaints
non-apperance 111 summons cases
CHAPTER VI Inherent Powers
CHAPTER VII Commission's conclusions and recommendations
News AND REFERENCES
APPENDIX I List of Summons cases under the Indian Penal Code
APPENDIX II List of Snmnons cases under other criminal Acts
Pap No.
18
19
20
'ct-rA1>'rEii i
INTRODUCTORY
l.l.li Perspective of the Report.--Likely injustice
in course of administration of criminal justice
resulting from the extant position of law in two
situations is sought to be foreclosed by recommend-
in; appropriate amendments in the existing law.
1.1.2. The 'two' situations giving rise to injustice
are :--
First situation.»-If the Revisional Court by a
signed order dismisses a criminal Revision for de-
fllult of the applicant or his/her Advocate to remain
present when the matter is called for hearing, the
court dismissing the said criminal revision cannot
nature the same for hearing on merits. The con-
cerned court cannot do so even if the applicant or
his/her Advocate was prevented from remaining
present for sufficient cause or in unavoidable circums-
tances notwithstanding the fact that the court passing
the order of dismissal for default is satisfied that the
Ibsenee deserves to be excused and ends of justice
to demand. Such i. the outcome in the context
«if the fact that as per the existing law a criminal
calm-has no power to review its 'final order' and an
Order dismissing a criminal revisional application
by I igned order is construed as a 'final order' Within
the meaning of the fetters imposed by section 362
of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to
the «airs power to alter or review its judgment or
ill! index.
limit s'itudtI'on.~--- The criminal court trying
_I case is powerless to remedy' the 1'e's'ultant
injustice in a given case arising out of the order of
aeqiiiltel re'quire'd to be rendered by the said court in
ihedvbnt of the c'ornplainan't being unable to appear
on the day appointed for the hearing [ (except in
oeriniii case's covered by the provniso to section 256
(I) i]. The net result of the relevant provisions of
the Code is, that once the accused is acquitted under
seetién 256 or a criminal case is dismissed for de-
fault by a signed order, then it cannot be restored
and the consequential acquittal cannot be set aside,
even if the deafult in appearance was for a sufficient
1030. There are two reasons, in the main, for this
position. First, the Code does not contain any
express provision for restoring the dismissed matter
entailing the acquittal of the zccusecl person. Second-
ly, section 352 of the Code expressly creates a bar
(1)
and prohibits the review of a' judgment or line'!
order, once it is signed. And because the order
of dismissal for default and the consequential order
of acquittal under section 256 is.const_1'"¢:d aufinll
order.
1.2. Need for remedial measures.--The aforesaid
statutory provisions cause and are likely to cause
serious hardship and injustice in practice in several
cases. The Law Commission of India is, therefore,
of the opinion that there is a felt need for enacting
provisions in the Code empowering the restoration of
a criminal case dismissed for deafult of appearance
and for setting aside the consequential order of acquit-
tal in a case where the order is occassioned by the
default in appearance of the complainant if suhient
cause exists for his default. As also for the re-
storation of a criminal revision dismissed for such
a default in appearance. For, it appears that
because of the bar created by section 362 against
the review of a final order and becasuse of the
limitations of section 482 of the Code (which
deals with the inherent power of a High Court).
it would not be permissible under the prowl! luv
for the court to resort to the inherent power for
restoring such proceedings even in order te seem
the ends of justice.
1.3. An illustration of hardship.--- Prim: tleie. the
present position, which in eflect totally milk
the restoration of a dismissed criminel Nvilelll
application very often results in serious leljfiflpl
and grave injustice. For e'x'am'ple, 't'e'l'e' ease
of an accused person who has been sentenced to
a short term of imprisonment agzsinst which no
appeal lies. If his application for 'revision in the
High Court is dismissed for default by 8 sifflféii
order, he must either undergo the se'nt'e'nee e'v'e'n
though the sentence might have been unwarranted
in law, or approach the Supreme Court. after eb-
taining special leave. This course would be too
expensive, too time consuming, and virtually be-V
yond the reach of an ordinary citizen. So also
the dismissal of a meritorious complaint in 1 III!-
mons case (even when t'n2 default in appearance
deserves to be excused on account of existence
of sutlieient cause) and the consequential acqqi
of the accused person is fraught with simihr; -_
uqueneee oceaasioning grave injustice to the aggriev-
ed complainant. The need for addressing this
problem also cannot be over-emphasised.
1.4. Need for examination of the Matter.-- It would,
therefore, seem that the matter needs a close look
from the point of view of promoting justice which,
of course, is the essential objective of any law of
procedure. In the succeeding Chapters of a this
Report it is, therefore, proposed to examine the
position in regard to this subject taking note of
the relevant statutory provisions in the light of
the judicial decisions on the subject. It is all!
proposed to examine the analogous situation of
a Magistrate dismissing a criminal case and acquit-
. ting the accused in cases not covered by the proviso
to section 256(1), Cr.P.C., where the complainanl
fails to appear at the hearing notwithstanding the
existance of sufficient cause for. failure to appear.
at such hearing. (Section 256 of the Code). And
to recommend the appropriate legislative reinedj/'
in the light of the discussion.
CHAPTER II
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
2.1. Provisions of the Code.---- Three sections of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 quoted
herein below are relevant for the present purposes,
namely, Sections 256, 362 and 482.
"256. Non-appearance or death of complainant.-
(l) Ifthe summons has been issued on complaint,
and, on the day appointed for the appearance
of the accused, or any day' subsequent thereto
to hich the hearing may be adjourned, the
- copplainant does not appear, the Masgistrate
shall. notwithstanding any thing herein---before
confined, acquit the accused, unless for some rea-
son he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of
the ease to some other day:
Provided that where the complainant is
represented by a pleader or by the officer con-
ducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate
is is opinion that the personal attendance of
thejqomplainant is not necessary, the Magistrate
tnnydispense 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
non-appearance of the complainant is due to
his death."
"362. Court not to alter judgment.----Save as
otherwise provided by this Code or by any
other law for the time being in force, no Court,
when it has signed its judgement or final order
disposing of a case, shall alter or review the
same except to correct a. clerical or arithmetical
error. "
"482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court
----Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to
limit or aflect the inherent powers of the High
Court to make such orders as may be necessary
to give eflect to any order under this Code,
or to prevent abuse of the process of any] court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
2.2 Position resulting from section 362.~-It may
be stated that section 362 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. 1973. corresponds to section 369, Code
of 18.93-
2---s1s Law/93.
(3)
Section 369, as enacted in 1898, provided that
"No Court, other than a High Court, when it
has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the
same, except as provided in sections 395 and 484
or to correct a clerical error." Despite the express
exclusion of the High Courts from the operation
of this provision, it was held that the High Courts
had no implied power to alter or review their own
judgments, whether under section 369 or under
section 439 or otherwise. It was accordingly
proposed in 1921, that the words "other than a
High Court" should be omitted. to make it clear
that section 369 conferred no such power on the
High Courts, as it was noticed that one or two
other sections of the Code (besides sections 395
and 484 and Cl. 26 of the Letters Patent of the
High Courts) empowered the High Courts to revise
their judgments. Hence the section was redrafted.
Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898, as amended in 1923, read as follows :~..
"Save as otherwise provided by this Code or
by any other law for the time being in force
or, in the case of a High Court, by the jLetter;
Patent or other instrument constituting such
High Court, no Court when it has "signed its
judgment shall alter or review the same, except
to correct a clerical error."
In the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 2 of 1974),
section 362 provides---
"Save as otherwise provided by this Code or
by any other law for the time being in force,
no Court, when it has signed its judgment or
final order disposing of a case, shall alter or'
review the same except to correct a clerical or
arithmetical error."
The words "or in the case of a High Court,
by the Letters Patent or other instrument con-
stituting such High Court" which were found in
the corresponding section 369 of the old Code,
have been omitted in the present section. Hence
an alteration or review by a High Court would
be permissible (as in the case of other Courts),
only where provision therefor is made in this Code
or by any other law for the time being in force.
At the same time, the section in the present Code
bars an alteration in a final order also.
2.3 Absence of power-.--We shall deal later in
detail with the case law on the relevant sections
of the Code. For the present purpose, it is sufficient
to say that broadly speaking, at the present day
by virtue of a judgment pronounced in 1986 by
the Supreme Court, it would appear that a court
cannot restore a criminal case dismissed for default.
Althea the judgment of 1986 in Gauraya's case
was bb éerned with dismissal for non-appearance
by the complainant, the following dicta occurring
in the' - judgment [(1986) Cr.LJ 1074, 1076 right
hand bolumn, para 10] should be noted ;--
:l*i '. ' . _ V -
1 f,'Sp.far as the accused, is concerned, dismissal
' of §a.;comp1aint for non-appearancevof the com-
plainant orhis discharge_or acquittal on the
Asaipe ground is a 'final order and in the "
ahfice of any speczjfic provision' in zhe.C'ofie,,
1;; agistrate jcannot exercise any
V _iction."
2.4:.;_U)hflicting views and their genesis.--There are
coriufliiting views among the High Courts on the
qués iin whether a court is empowered to order the
rest%' tion of a criminal revisionpetition dismissed
for" ault. To a great extent, this confliet owes
E0 the interpretation to be placed on two
ant provisions of _the
lire, 1973, one positive and the other negative.
'itive provision is contained in section 482
of Code which recognises the inherent power
of High Court, to be exercised for securing
inhere t
Code of Criminal ;
the ends of justice and for the purposes mentione d
in the section. The negative provision is to be
found in section 362 of the Code, which (in effect)
_b_ars review or
troversy as to whether an order dismissing fie
Revisional application otherwise than on merits.
is a 'judgment' or 'final.order' within the meafiing
of the said section.' ' C . . .
sary to resolve the controversv with urgency" for
it wouldbe incongruous to toleratethc same a! v ;
Act" operating in' an inconsistant -manner 0
sets of High Courts. The recent decisionofi'
Supreme Court in' G'auraya/s case', a1b'e_it"iii 'E '
context of the dismis'sal'of«a criminal their .
holding that such adismissal followed Hy>t'§e"~ " -' a
mi of the accused is a 'judgment' -or "fihal
and cannot be set aside even in exercise of iihir-ent
powers (which courts other than '
do not possess) enhances the complexlty'of'-iitle
situation._ Besides, it underscores the need to
resolve the controversy with urgency lest '
Courts-hold that the Revisional 'applie_Q'ioIIs"i
merits and others holding thatrtheylf '' (
restoreal. And-to provide for a speedierlahd 'eh '
remedy in the High Court itself without ~ g
obliged to approach the Supreme Court »at' 'fro-
hibitive time-cost and. money-cost.
I
_ alteration of a judgment or final'
' order once it is signed in the context of the con-
3
,.fi
-1
S- .
missed for default can be restored *mr' __.
as
2.5. Urgent need to resolve the conflict.--It is necks:
-f eimtsq)
CHAPTER III
' JUDICIAL DECISIONS AS TO DISMISSAL FOR DEFAULT OF CRIMINAL MATTERS
I
3.1. Scope of the Chapter.--In this Chapter, we pro-
pose to note the important judicial pronouncements
on the isubject of dismissal of a criminal case for
default.' '
3.2. Decisions of High Courts holding that power
' ore criminal matters dismissed for default.-
In an hhabad easel criminal revision 'petition was
dismissed for default by the High Court, under a
mistppnhension that no medical certificate of the
petitiunifior illness slip of his counsel had been filed.
Bath t.'tY3lse documents were, in fact, on the record.
The"A1ld/tabad High Court held that in exercise of
its inherent powers, it could restore the case dismissed
_/or default. ' '
. 3 '
3.3. Alltller Allahabad case.----Another Allahabad
, case-'2 may be cited. The petitioners were being pro.
-Ysecutodjnder section 406, Indian Penal Code, on a
private'_}epa1plaint. The complaint was dismissed by
the Magistrate and the petitioners were dis.
charged' finder section 203, Cr.P.C., 1973. The com.
plgjnant before the Sessions Judge a revision
petition; igainst the order of discharge. The revision
pefifiogfv gs dismissed for non-appearance of the
complainant's application. 4 Against this order of
dismisqlg the petitioners filed a revision petition in_
'?gh¢ 1-Iigh§C01lrt. It was held by the Allalzabad High
_ Caurtthfi the criminal revision, dismissed for default,
cquldbetrartored and reheard by the Sessions Judge.
The dtwflssal was not _a judgment. -- Further. the Code
does noelaontemplate dismissal of a revision for default.
3.4.'fit tdllhay Case.----In a Bombay case3- the peti-
tioner'"wa§'being prosecuted under sections 341, 397
rand 506 df the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of a
'¢gmQ1ajn~ piade by one Navabai Vasandani. The
Iwmifig itissyued process to the petitioner. The order
Ofiés, ' ' firocess passed by the Magistrate was chal-
1enged:;.3 the petitioner by way of _a criminal writ
petitipngi A e petition came up for hearing on Feb-
ruary 2'.,19'84, on which date a prayer for adjourn-_
ment was finade on behalf of the petitioner. The case
asvadj M ed to February 13, 1984. However, the
s erist , of the court inadvertently mentioned the
next. _ 1' I 1 f hearing in the roznama as February '8,
1,984.' : writ petitioniwhen called out for hearing
oii"Fe,brnary 8, 1984 was dismissed in default, since
none was present on behalf of the petitioner. On'_
(5)
an application being made for restoration of the
case, the Bombay High Court held that in itsinhenettt
powers, as provided in section 482 of the Code of Crimi-
nal Procedure, 1973, the High Court could review' or
revise its own judgment, If such' a judgment was pro-
nounced without giving an opportunity of being heard
to a party who was entitled to hearing and that party
was not at fault. That party should not sufler for
mistake of court.
3.5. A Calcutta case, Dismissal of revision petition.
In a Calcutta case-4, a criminal revision against a con-
viction was dismissed by the High Court for default.
On an application for restoration of the same, the
Division Bench held that while, in India, no court
could review its judgment on the merits, it could reopen
a rule which had been discharged because no one had
appeared at the hearing. The' case had not been heard
and determined on the merits. There had been no
judgment. 'Hence there was no question of review of
judgment. .
3.6. A Gauhati case, Dismissal of revision for de-
faIIlt---not a "final order".---In a Gauhati case5 'a
criminal revision petition was dismissed for default
of appearance.The Gauhati High Court ' held that
an order of dismissal of a criminal revision petition
for default of appearance may not be regarded as a
"final order" disposing of the case as envisaged in
section 362, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and
assueh, when one or more of the requirements of
section 482 of 'the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1913
are present and where glaring injustice stares the court
in the face', such an order can be set aside and the peii-
tion restored and heard on merits by 'the High Court,
exercising its inherent powers. ' A '
3 -7- A Madras case : Dismissal of appeal -by High
Court : no judgement. --In a Madras case6, the appe-
llant: who was convicted of contempt by a special
Magistrate. filed an appeal before the High Court.
against his conviction and sentence. The appeal
was dismissed as time barred by the Vacationiudge.
The appellant, presumably in ignorance of this
' fact, presented another appeal on the reopening of
the court through counsel. On an objection hav-
ing been raised, the second appeal was held to be
not maintainable. During the course of discussion,
the power of the High Court to order the restora-
tion of a case dismissed in default was also exami-
ned and it was held by the High Court that when a
criminal appeal or a criminal revision petition is
dismissed without hearing, there is no "judgment"
at all and the Judge or the Bench which disposed of
the matter for default. of appearance .could rehear
the matter. The case was decided under the code of
1898. In the present Code even an alteration of a
'final order' is barred by section 362.
3-8--~ A Patna case. In a Patna case7, the pe-
titioners had filed a revision petition against their
conviction and sentence, but had not attached a
copy of the judgment of the trial court. The court
allowed one week for filing certified copy of the
judgment of the trial court.
A direction was further given, that if the copy
was not filed within the stipulated time, then the
revision petition was to stand dismissed, but an
application was made to the High Court to restore
it. The Patna High Court held that the bar against
review (as contained in section 369 of the code of
1898) did not prhoibit restoration of a revision dis-
missed for defizult, because such order of dismissal
was not a "judgment". The inherent power of the
High Court was also relied on in support of such
restoration .
It should, however, be noted that in so for as this
ruling of the Patna High Court stresses the narrow_
word "judgment" used in section 369 of the Code
as in force at that time, the ruling has lost much of
its utility because the present section uses the ex-
premion "or final order" also.
3-9- A Rajasthan case regarding dismissal of revi-
shI-In a Rajasthan case, the criminal revision
peliion was listed for admission on January 17,
1951, on which date neither the petitioner nor his
counsel was present and consequently the petition
was dismissed in default. It was held by the Raja-
stllan High Court as under :--
"So far as the question of restoration, strictly
so called, is concerned, there is no provision in
the Code of Criminal Procedure which empowers
a Criminal Court to restore a criminal case once
'it' has been finally decided. The power of res.
toration has to be specifically conferred, as in
the case in the Code of Civil Procedure before
it can be examined by a court".
"'It is, however, the duty of the Court on the
criminal side to decide a criminal matter on the
merits whether a party or his pleader is present
or not and though there can be no restoration
in a criminal case, the High Court has the power'
under s. 561A to make such orders as are ne-
cessary in the interests of justice.
"Thus, where a criminal revision is dismissed for
default without going into its merits and there is _
no fault on the part of the applicant's lawyer who
was waiting in the court in which the case was
listed, the High Court should exercise its power
under s. 561A to secure the ends of justice so
that the revision may be disposed of after consi-
dering the grounds raised".
It was further directed that on the failure of Qt
titioners to file the copy of the judgment' withii the _
stipulated time, the revision petition was to fluid '
dismissed without any further reference. Since
the petitioners did not file the certified copy the
judgment within the time granted by the Court, their
revision petition stood dismissed for default after
the expiry of the stipulated period. On an,qppIi- pg
cation for restoration having been made, theglatna
High Cuort held that section 369 of the Code of Cri-
minal Procedure, [898 corresponding to sectfilt 362
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Iva's'r'io'
bar to the restoration of the criminal revision" dis-A
missed for default because such an order of _
on default was not a "judgment" withm_the'nteal-
ing of section 369 Of the Code of Criminal*'Froc¢'-
dure, 1898. It was further held that the court,
in exercise of its inherent powers contained in sec-
tion 56lA of the Code of Criminal Procedure; .1898"
correspnonding to section 482 of the Code' or Cri- '
minal Procedure, 1973, could order the restihtlon
of the revision petittion dismissed for defutltvh
appropriate case. It was also held that in 1:59 eti-
minal revision, the High Court acts at its on as.
cretion and its order dismissing the revision' 1:-
tition in default is within the jurisdiction since no
petitioner has a right to be heard and the High .
Court is not compelled to interfere with a. judgment
brought to its notice unless it so thinks fit.
3---10° Dismissal for default. No power 'to ' '
criminal matters according to some "High?
We may now note High Court ruling: ' _
no such power exists. An Andhra case' pen,
a dispute regarding immovable property Gktidiiif
145, Code of Criminal Procedure). The party" afi-
rieved by the order of the magistrate filed a revision
before the District Magistrate. On the date fixed
for hearing of the revision petition, both the its
were absent and the revision was dismissed"
fault. An Application made for restoration? of tiiei
revision petition was allowed by the I)istrlct"§fui;i;-A
trate. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite mg
preferred a revision to the High Court. The Ad-
mission" judge in the High Court did not go into the
merits of the case. But he directed the District Magist-
rate to decide the question whether a criminal case
dismissed for default could be restored (as this question
had been raised before the District Magistrate, but
not decided). It so happend, that in the meantime,
there had been a change of incumbent in the
ofiice of the District Magistrate and the District
Magistrate who heard the matter as directed by the
High Court, dismissed the restoration petition,
relying mainly on the fact that the Code contain-
ed no provision for restoration. This time, the
party aggrieved by the dismissal approached the
High Court in revision. The Andhra Pradesh High
Court held that no restoration petition could lie
against an order dismissing a criminal revision petition
for default. It followed the Madras ruling in B.
Rangarao 23 ML! 371 laying down that in a crimi-
nal revision, no distinction can be made between an
order passed without hearing the petitioner and one
in which he is heard.
3 -11- Another Andhra case and Himachal %:ase.---
Another case from Andhra Pradeshl0 holds that
there is no jurisdiction in the court to dismiss revi-
sion. for default, once the records are called for.
Same is the view taken by the High Court of Hima-
chal. -'Pradesh1l.
3 -12- A Kerala case : dismissal of revision.---
The Kerala High Court12 has held to the following
effect (with reference to the Code of 1973) :--~
_"Clause (2) of s. 401 which deals with the po-
wers of revision of the High Court provides that no
order under that section should be made to the
prejudice of the accused or other person unless he
had an opportunity of being heard either per.
sonally or by pleader in his own defence. The aff-
ord of an opportunity is ditferent from the availing
of that opportunity. A party would get an Oppor.
tunity for being heard if he is given notice of the
case and the posting. His being not present at the
time of hearing is his not availing of that opportu-
nity, There is no power conferred on the court by
the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code for
restoration of revision petitions which havebeen dis-
posed of, also. . . . . . . .. Restoration to file,
and Yehcaflngi Pfayed for here, is not to give effect
to any order under the Code. Nor is it to prevent
abuse 'of the process of the court, because no ab-
use of the process of the court is involved here,
As the disposal here was after perusal of records
and after hearing those counsel who were present
in court, it was in accordance with law. The Words
"or otherwise to secure the ends of justice" occu- ~
rring in section 482 also cannot take in a case of
the present kind. Those words have to be read
ejusdem generis . . . . .. Restoration and hearing
of a revision petition disposed of without hearing
the respondent's counsel, is not a purpose analo-
gous to "giving elfect to an order under the Code"
or preventing abuse of the process of Court. On
the other hand, to restore and rehear a criminal revi-
sion petition which has been disposed of; would be
to go against the mandatory provision in section 362
of the Criminal Procedure Code, that, except to co-
rrect a clerical or arithmetical error, a judgment or
order should not be altered or reviewed after it is si-
gned, unless otherwise provided, and any inherent
power cannot be used to do. what is expressly pro-
hibited by the Code. Section 482 of the Code is not
meant to give second inning to a party in a case which
has already been decided against him".
The Kerala High Court further held that the Sup-
reme Court rulings of 1962 and 1979 had clinched
the matter.
3 -13- A Madras case : dismissal of revislon.---
The Madras High Court13 in 1912 held---
(a) that it had no power to review an order
passed in its criminal revisional jurisdic-
tion.
(b) that this was so even where the rev'sion
petiton had been dismissed' for default
and
(c) that no distinction could be made between
an order passed without hearing the peti-
tioner and an order passed after hearing
the petitioner.
3 -14- Another Madras case : dismissal of revi-
sion.-'-In another Madras case14 of 1923, a crimi-
nal revision petition was dismissed for default-by
the High Court. The petitioner filed a second revi-
sion petition for the same relief. It was held as
under :--
(a) The court could not, and would not, en-
tertain a second petition on a matter al-
ready disposed of; g,
(b) A revision petition dismissed for default
cannot be restored.
3-15- A third Madras case: dismimal of revi-
sion.---In yet another Madras case15 of 1,949, a com-
plaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed uade:
section; 203, Code of Criminal Procedure, .1898.
The petitioner preferred a criminal revision before
the Sessions Judge, which was- dismissed for def-
ault. Application for restoration was also dismi-
ssed by the Sessions Judge, who held that no such
application lay. On further revision being filed
before the Madras High Court, the High Court
held that a revision petition before the Sessions
Judge, dismissed for default cannot be restored.
3 -.16.', Supreme Court case. of l962.-- The Supreme
Courthad an occasion to consider the question whether
an appellate court has the power to review or restore
an appeal which is dismissed in 1952, in Sankatha
Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh 16. The facts of the
case were that the appellants were convicted and
sentenpgd under section 323, 324 and 452 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Magis-
trate. Their appeal against conviction, before the
Sessio Judge, was dismissed in default. The appeal
was fibsequently restored for rehearing by the
Sessions Judge, on an application having been made
by the appellants. The successor of the Sessions
Judge,'Who restored the appeal, however, was of the
opinion"-that the appellate court had no power to
review or restore an appeal. He accordingly dis-
missed: e appeal, by holding that the order of his
pres' iibr restoring the appealwas ultra vires and
without éjurisdiction. The revision petition carried
to theilijgh Court against this order was dismissed.
In appedl to the Supreme Court, it was held that
an appeflate court has no power to review or restore
an appeal which had been disposed of. A Sessions
Judgejgajmot set aside his first order passed in appeal
dismissing the appeal when neither the appellants
'C counsel appeared and cannot order the
nor their
reheafiigg 'of the appeal.
-"In far as the-inherent power of the court to
restore a case is concerned, the Supreme Court
held der in Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P.,
reieira o hereinabove:--
".~.<ag'Assuming that Sri Tej Pal 'Singh, as.
Seslidns Judge, could exercise inherent powers,
of the opinion that he could not pass the:
ordef of the rehearing of the appeal in the exercise:
of V.!:I¥'ll powers when section 369, read with
seq , 424 of the Code, specifically prohibits the
alien g or reviewing of its order by a court.
Inherént powers cannot be exercised to do what
the' (lode specifically prohibits the court from
n
'A1 T i thin the above judgment, it Was held
that an' pellate court must decide the appeal on
. ~'l A
the» merits, whetheror not the parties appea,I;,«';t_,l:l¢.
judgment is relevant for the present, purp9;t:,_,.;i£'l
so far as it makes a definite negative pronouncerpfilt
regarding inherent power of the appellatqeolllit gfid
specifically holds that an appeal once decided eagzpt
be reheard under the inherent power 1,,
' ' *2 it; ';
3 -17. Supreme Court case of 1977.--In Bindeshwfii
P1-asad Singh'S case1~7, (decided in 1977), -the
Supreme Court iheld:~----- - :_.,g i
"....there is absolutely no provision in tie
Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898
applies to this case) empowering a Magistrate
to review or recall an order passed
Code of Criminal Procedure does cbntaitiil
provision for inherent power, namely seétfihl
C561-A which, however, confers these plowersi'
'the High Court 'and the High Court al'oti,.
U/zlikc scctiorz 151 of Civil Procedure 'Code
the suborrlinate Criminal Courts have no in-
herent powers. In these circumstances. therefor ,
. J...' s ~
the learned Magistrate had absolutely F
iurisdiction to recall the order dismissing fit:
. complaint. _- The remedy of the respondent
to move the Sessions Judge or the
. in revision. In fact,- after having passedi nifl
order dated 23-ll-1968, -the sub-divisiomt
-Magistrate became fnncho officio and had .10
power to review or recall that order, on any
ground whatsoever. In these circumstances,
therefore, the order, even if there be one, re-
calling the order dismissing the complaint,' was
entirely without jurisdiction. This :being= hid
position, all subsequent proceedings rfbllowiiig
upon recalling the said order, would fall to the
ground, including order dated 3-5-1972 summon-
ing the accused, which must also be treated to'
beat nullity and destitute of any legal' efl'eQ_'
-The High Court has not at all considered
important aspect of the matter, which alarm'
was suflicient to put an end to these proceedigns."
3°18; Supreme Court judgment of -1979.
most important judgment of the Supreme Court' f'
of 1979. In that case13, the High Court' had '(run
revision) enhanced the sentence pnssed on tlih"
convicted person. A petition for review" bf tflflfi
judgment was entertained by the High Court.' on an
appeal by the State Government, the Supreme Court
held that-- . . s.
. . V wt...
(3) the High Court cannot review or r¢vi.n_.-
'judgment passed in appeal-or re_vision'Iexa(p(i
in accordance with the 'provisions of tho?
Code of Criminal Procedure. ,,
(b) The inherent power of the Court (section
561A, Code of 1898) cannot be exercised
for a purpose specifically prohibited by
the Code.
3 -19. Position arising in the context of 1986 judg-
melt of Supreme Court.---In a case decided in 1986.
the Supreme Court,19 answreing a broad question,
namely, "whether a subordinate criminal court has
any inherentjurisdiction outside the provisions of the
Criminal Procedure Code", held that no such power
existed.
The facts may be stated in detail. A complaint
had been filed under sections 67 and 72C(1)(a),
Mines Act, 1952 read with the relevant Regulations
made 'under the Act. On the date fixed for
ap ;ance of the accused, neither the complai-
nantlnor the accused appeared and the trial court
dismissed the case for default. The complainant
applied for restoration of the case to the Magistrate
and rettorationwas ordered. The accused, however,
applied before the Magistrate and challenged the
order as being without jurisdiction. The Magistrate
rejected the application of the accused, holding that
he had inherent power to review and recall his
earlieriorder. The accused then applied in revision
to the Sessions Judge and the High Court, but both
of them rejected the application of the accused.
Themafter, the accused moved another application
beforegthe Magistrate, relying on the judgment of
the Sqoreme Court in Bindeshwari Prasad v. Kali
Singlt3:0. That judgment had held that no criminal
court had an inherent jurisdiction not provided
for in the Code. Accepting the application of the
accused, the Magistrate dropped the proceedings
against the accused. This time, it was the complai-
nant who was aggrieved by the order of the
Magistrate and he filed a revision petition before
the Sessions Judge, which was accepted and the
order of the Magistrate, dropping the proceedings,
,. was set aside. The complainant aggrieved by the
order of the Magistrate, filed a revised peition
before the Sessions Court. The accused approached
the High Court by way of petition under
artic1efi27 of the Constitution of India read with
section 7482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, The petition was dismissed in limine by the
High Court. The accused filed an appeal before
L the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed
C the appeal and observed :--
"Wlut the court has to see, is not whether
the Code of Criminal Procedure contains any
provision prohibiting a Magistrate from enter.
raining an application to restore a dismissed
complaint but the task should be to find cut
whether the said Code contains any- provision
enabling a Magistrate to exercise an inhasent
jurisdiction which he otherwise does not have.
It was relying upon this decision that the Delhi
High Court in this case directed the Magistrate
to recall the order of dismissal of the complaint.
The Delhi High Court referred to various decisions
dealing with section 367 of the Criminal Procedure
Code (of 1898) as what should be "the contents
of a judgment. In our view, the entire dis-
cussion is misplaced. So far as the accused is
concerned, dismissal of a complaint for non
appearance of the complainant or his charge or
acquittal on the same ground is a final onder
and in the absence of any specific provision
- in the Code, a Magistrate cannot exercise any
inherent jurisdiction".
"In the "course of its judgment, (in paragraphs
9 and 10) the Supreme Court (apparently referring
to the Code of 1973), made the following
observations :--
"9. Section 249 of the Criminal P. C. enables
a Magistrate to discharge the accused when the
complainant is absent and when the conditions
laid down in the said section are satisfied.
S. 256(1) of the Criminal P. C. enables a
Magistrate to acquit the accused if the com.
plainant does not appear. Thus, the order of
dismissal of a complainant by a criminal court
due to the absence of a complainant is a proper
order. But the question remains whether a
Magistrate can restore a complaint to his file by
revoking his earlier order dismissing it gfor the
non-appearance of the complainant and proceed
with it when an application is made by the
complainant to revive it. A second complaint
is permissible in law, if it could be brought
within the limitations imposed by this Collt
in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Raqjan
Sarkar, 1962 Supp. (2) SCR 297 : (AIR 1962 SC
876) filing of a second complaint is not the same
thing as reviving a dismissed complaint after
recalling the earlier order of dismissal. The
Criminal P. C. does not contain any provision
enabling the criminal Court to exercise such in
inherent power".
3-20. What flows from aforesaid judgments at
Supreme Court:---It would appear from the abovg
resume of Supreme Court decisions, that the
resultant position is as undcr:-----
(I) An Appeal cannot be dismissed for default,
It must be disposed of on merit: whetfief
or not the party or his advocate is present.
(Supreme Court judgment of 1962).
(2) An appeal once dismissed cannot be restored
(3)
(4)
for rehearing under the inherent power of
the High Court. (Supreme Court judgment
of 1962).
Wltere a High Court has rendered a judgment
or rejected a revisional application by a
signed order, it cannot review the same.
(Supreme Court judgment of 1979).
Nor can the High Court do so in exercise
of its inherent power. (Supreme Court
judgment of I979).
(4A) Subordinate criminal courts do not possess
(5)
inherent powers.
of 1977).
Apparently. the same is the position regarding
dismissal of a criminal case for default
(Supreme Court judgment
10
(6)
(7)
(3)
pursuant to at signed order in, this behalf.
(Supreme Court judgment of 1979).
A. signed order of a Magistrate dismissing
a complaint or an order discharging the
accused for default of the complainant, is
a final order. (Supreme Court judgment of
1986).
An order so passed for tlefauit cannot be
disturbed' by restoring the case under the
inherent power, in face of the express pro-
hibition against alteration of judgment or
final order embodied in section 362 of the
Code of 1973. (Supreme Court judgment
of 1986).
SUCH ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR
DEFAULT CAN BE SET ASIDE, IF AT
ALL, ONLY BY THE HIGHER COURT
OF APPEAL, OR REVISION. (SUPREME
COURT JUDGMENT OF 1986).
' they are dealt with by Magistrates
' Magistrate, Rajpura.
CHAPTER IV
POSITION IN RELATION TO DISMISSAL FOR DEFAULT OF MAINTENANCE CASES AND
THE RESTORATION THEREOF
4~l. Section 125 Cr. P. C. 1973 :---At this stage,
we would like to deal in brief with proceedings
for maintenance under section 125, Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Code). These proceedings, though
nder the Code
in substance partake of the character of civil
proceedings.
4-2. A Punjab case as to maintenance:-In 1989,
in a case before the Punjab and Haryana High
Court1 the question arose whether the Judicial
Magistrate could restore the execution application
of an order under section 125, Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, which was dismissed in default
for non-appearance of the petitioner. The Judicial
had granted maintenance
under section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, in favour of Kamla Devi of Banur (District
Patiala) and her two minor children. from her
husband Mahma Singh. Because of non-payment
of . the maintenance amount, the wife filed an
execution application which was dismissed in default
as she and her counsel could not appear before the
court. On her application, the execution application
was restored by the Judicial Magistrate. On a
revision filed by the husband before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Patiala, a legal point was raised
that the Magistrate could not restore the execution
application because of the ban of section 362. Cr.
P.C. 1973 which bars alteration in a judgment or
final order. The plea raised by the husband
was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
«The wife preferred a petition in the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana, in revision against this order.
A Division Bench of the High Court held that the
referred application could be restored. The High
Court, relying upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in Savitri v. Govind Sing]: Rawat2 and the
decisions of the Delhi High Court in Prema Jain v.
Sudlzir Kumar Jain and Surhid Kamra v. Neeta4
.; held to the following effect :--
(i) There is no specific provision in Chapter
IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure
dealing with application for grant of main-
tenance to wives, children and parents to
dismiss such applications for non-appearance
of the petitioner. Since such applications
3-515 I.aw/ 93
(11)
are not to be equated with criminal complaint
which necessarily are to be dismissed for
non-appearance of the complainant in view
of section 256 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, it is only in the exercise of
inherent power of the court that for non-
appearance of the petitioner, application
under section 125 of the Code is dismissed.
If that is so, there is no reason why there
should not be inherent power with the court
to restore such applications dismissed in
default on showing sufficient cause by the
petitioner for his non-appearance.
"The nature of the proceedings in
Chapter IX of the Code is inherently con-
cerning civil rights, i.e. grant of maintenance
to wives, children and parents. All these
orders passed under different provisions of
Chapter IX, as briefly noticed above, are
interim in nature and can be modified, varied
or cancelled on the grounds mentioned there-
in. Furthermore, such orders are subject
to final orders, if any, passed by the civil
courts regarding grant of maintenance. The
Code of Criminal Procedure provides a
swift and speedy remedy to the petitioners
claiming maintenance who are being neg-
lected. It is only in the matter of imple-
mentation of such orders that a stringent
provision is made for recovery of such amount
as recovery of fine or by sending the person
against whom order is made to imprisonment
for a certain period till payment is made.
This remedy cannot be throttled by proce-
dural technicalities such as non-appearance
of the petitioner on a particular day. Such
non-appearance in a given case may be beyond
the control of the petitioner. In other words,
there may be sufficient and cogent reason for
the petitioner not to put in appearance when
the case was actually called. In such
circumstances, not to restore the application
dismissed in default would result in mis-
carriage of justice. J On a sufiicient cause
being shown, the court would have inherent
power in such like cases to restore such
applications dismissed in default,"
4-3. It needs to be stressed that the order passed
by the High Court sustaining the restoration may
now become vulnerable in as much as the Supreme
Court has declared in Bindeshwari's case5 that a
magistrates court has no inherent powers.
Complications are, therefore, inherent in the
present situation and serious injustice is likely to
ensue unless the law is amended persuant to the
recommendations we propose to make.
12
4-4. Eflcct of proposed amendment:----We may
mention that the uiiiciitliiiciitw which are proposed
to be recommended presently when accepted and
acted upon will foreclose or shut the door for any
future controversy in the context of the inter-
pretation of the provisions partaining to inherent
powers of the concerned courts to restore such
matters for the sake of promoting ends of
justice. V '
CHAPTER 'V
§osITioN IN REGARD TO ACQUITTAL IN THE CONTEXT or COMPLAINANT'S NON-
APPEARANCE IN SUMMONS CASES
5-1. Position under section 256.--Attention must
be drawn to another analogous problem which
arises out of section 256 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. 1973, appearing in Chapter 20, dealing
with the trial of summons cases. Broadly speaking,
cases relating to offences punishable with imprison-
ment up to two years would fall in this category.
Under section 256(1), if, in a summons case not
covered by the proviso, the complainant is absent
on thedate fixed for hearing, the Magistrate must
acquit the accused, unless he thinks it proper to
adjourn the hearing to another date. And the
normal consequeces of acquittal under the law
follow.
5 -2. Absence of power of restoration.-- One of the
consequences of the order of acquittal is that a
it second trial cannot be held for the same offence
in view of the prohibition against double jeopardy.
The only remedy available would be by way of an
appeal against acquittal under section 378 of the
Code. The conditions of that provision are, how-
ever. fairly stringent. In any case, since there
would be no decision on the merits, the order of
acquittal cannot be assailed on merits in the appel-
late forum and the order can be challenged solely
(in the context of the failure of the magistrate to
adjourn the matter instead of dismissing the satne
for defitult. As the magistrate has no powerl to
restore a case dealt with under section 256(1), the
resultant harm cannot be crazed even if the complai-
nant is subsequently able to establish that his
absence on the date fixed for hearing was for
sufficient cause. And in view of the order oi'
«acquittal. and the attendant but against double
jeopardy even a fresh complaint may not be compe-
tent and the wrong would become irreversible and
irreparable.
. 1
5 -3. Resultant hardship and need for antendment.-
The present position as summarized above causes
avoidable hardship and may result in the acquittal
#01.' persons who are really guilty, since in cases
root covered by the proviso such acquittal follows
as a mandatory consequence (unless the case is
adjourned) on the non-appearance of the complai-
nant. Prima facie, it seems that in cases where
the complainant had a reasonable cause for not
(13)
attending on the date of hearing, the magistrate
should have power to set aside the acquittal 'and
fix the matter for fresh hearing.
5'4-1. Magnitude of consequences.--In this
connection, it would be useful to glance at the
categorisation of cases as summons cases and
warrant cases under the Code, in order to assess
the magnitude of the consequences 'flowing from the
absence of the power to restore the _matter. A
"Summons Case", as defined in section 2(v) of the
Code, means a case relating to an offence and not
being a warrant case. A "Warrant Case" as per
section 2(x), means a case relating to an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term exceeding two years.
Thus, all cases relating to oflences punishable with
inqtrisonntent upto two years become summons cases
trlable under Chapter 20 of the Code which contain;
section 256. a
5-4-2. A perusal of Appendix-1 listing summons
cases under Indian Penal Code and Appendix-II
listing summons cases under some other Central
Acts, would show that many of the oflences triable
as summons cases cannot be terme s petty of
trivial, either from the point of view of the aggrieved
person or from the point of view of the community
at large.
A few illustrations may be useful.---Thus, as
regards the offences under the Indian Penal Code,
the instance of simple cheating (section 417) may
be cited. The punishment is imprisonment upto
one year. It is non-cognizable. One can also cite
the example of olfence under section 427 (mischief)
(causing damage of Rs. 50/- or more). Punishment
is imprisonment upto two years. It is also non.
cognizable. Even criminal intimidation (Section
506 first part) punishable with imprisonment upto
two years is a summons case and non~c0gnIzahlc_
So also in regard to an offence under section 509
(insulting the modesty of a woman). carrying simple
imprisonment upto one year. Although the ofi'enee'
is cognizable, yet it may happen that in practice,
cognisance was taken on complaint of the woman.
In all such cases the cognisance would have been
taken only on a complaint and the aforementioned
consequences would follow in the event of the
absence of the complainant.
5-4-3. Even in regard to olfenccs under special
laws, where the offence is cognizable, cognizance
may have been taken by the court on a complaint.
Thus, the Dowry Prohibition Act, l96l, section
8(1), makes the olfenees under that Act cognizable
for certain purposes, but section 7(l)(b) of the
same Act prohibits cognizance except on the
knowledge of the court, police report or complaint
14
by the person aggrieved etc., or by a recognised
welfare institution or organisation. Punishment
for demanding dowry is imprisonment upto two
years (section 4), so that the offence relating thereto
becomes a summons case. In such cases, also
non-appearance by the complainant or the welfare
organisation will lead to acquittal.
Evidently, therefore, there exists the need to
amend the law, so as to avoid injustice in all such
cases.
CHAPTER VI
INHERENT POWERS
6-1. Observations in 14th Report.--Tlic Law Com-
mission in its 14th Report, while dealing with the
question of inherent powers, recommended that
such inherent powers of all criminal courts should
be statutorily recognised. The question regarding
the restoration of the case dismissed for default
was, however, not considered by the Law Commission
inthe said report. The recommendation: made by
the Law Commission were to the following cfl"ectl :-----
"l2. The doctrine of inherent jurisdiction was
for the first time given statutory recognition in
the case of High Courts exercising criminal juris-
diction by the enactment of section 561-A in the
Cniminal Procedure Code in 1923. This section
'assumes the existence of such inherent power in
the High Courts and provides that nothing in the
Code is to be deemed to limit its inherent power
to make such orders as would be necessary' to
give effect to any order under the Code or to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or to
otherwise secure the ends of justice. The inherent
power, thus recognised, empowers the Court,
inter alia, to prevent the abuse of the process not
(15)
only of the High Court but of any court. The
High Court thus exercises its inherent jurisdiction
not only in respect of proceedings before it but
also in respect of proceedings in thctsubordinate
court. I
"I3. T/zis statutory recognition, however, extends
only to the inherent powers of the High Court.'
One may compare it with the recognition of the
inherent powers of all civil courts by section 151,
Civil Procedure Code.
We reiterate the substance of the recommendation
made in the earlier Reports, and recommend, that
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(which deals with inherent powers) should be amend-
ed for the purpose. However, we are of the View,
that in actually formulating the amendment, the
language employed should be aflirniative, rather than
negative as suggested in the earlier Reports. Because,
what was then suggested was on the premise that
even criminal courts did possess inherent powers,
which premise no longer holds good in the light of
the Supreme Court decision in Gauraya's easn_.3
CHAPTER VII
COMMISSION'S CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FIRST RECOMMENDATION
7 -1. Recommendation regarding empowering the
courts to restore applications dismissed for default in
appeaunee.----Having regard to the foregoing
discussion, the Commission considers it eminently
desirable that in order to promote tl1e ends of justice,
a provision should be incorporated in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, as section 482A, enabling
the restoration of a criminal revisional application,
dismissed for default of appearance or some other
default, where such default is due to sullicicnt cause.
The new section may be on these lines':-
v"482A. (I) Where an application invoking the
1-evisional jurisdiction is dismissed for default
-of appearance of tlie applicant or his/her advocate
or some other default, the court may, if it is
satisfied that such person was prevented by suffi-
cient cause from appearing, make an order setting
-aside the order of dismissal upon such terms as to
costs or otherwise, as it thinks'fit and shall appoint
va. dd)' for proceeding with the application".
"Provided that no such application for restoration
shall be entertained after the expiry of a period
of thirty days from the date on which the appli-
cation was dismissed for default.
(2) No order shall be made under sub--section
(1), unless notice of the application thereunder
has been served on the opposite party.
SECOND RECOMMENDA'l'[ON
7 -2 -1. Recommendation regarding restoration of a
criminal case for default in appearance and consequem
tial again! of the accused for non-appearance.--The
Comnission is further of the opinion that section
256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, should
be amended to effectuate the recommendations made
in the earlier Chapterl in the light of the need for
% _ remedying the injustice inherent in the situation as
spelt out earlier. For, a meritorious complaint of a
"0mplainant cannot be allowed to be thwarted, only
on the ground that the complainant was unable to
remain present, even though there existed,gooa' and
suflicient cause for such absence. Ends of fltstice
demand that such a person should not be made to suffer
injustice merely because he or she cannot aflord to
(15)
.;'
approach the Supreme Court, which court is, in its
turn, overburdened with work. The power to set aside
the dismissal and restoring it will have, therefore,
to be conferred on the criminal court for proceeding
further in accordance with law. 7
7-2-2. It will also be necessary to amend the pro-
vision regarding the nature of the consequential ortbr.
If a consequential order of acquittal as presently pro-
vided is passed, the same court cannot set it aside
even whilst setting aside the orderof 'dismissal form-
ing the basis of the orderi of acquittal. Only the higher
court can set aside the acquittal. To overccnlethis
problem, it will, therefore, be appropriate to proiride
that the order passed is in the form of "termination
of proceedings" and to further provide that itiwill
have the effect of an order of acquittal unless 'the
order of dismissal for default is set aside inipursutnee
of the power to restore conferred on the court. ""
7-2 -3. The problem can be redressed by amending
section 256 to incorporate the following points:---
(a) the order to be passed under the section
shall be an order terminating the proceeding
having the same effect as an acquittal, unless
it is set aside as provided in (b) below;
(b) such order may (after notice to the accused)
be set aside if the complainant, by an ap--_
plication made within 30 days, shows that
there was suflicient cause for the non ap-
pearance of the complainant.
7-3. We suggest, that section 256 should be revised
as under: '
"256. Non-appearance or death of complainant.'----
(1) If the summons has heen issued on com-
plaint and, on the day appointed for the
appearance of the accused, or on any day
subsequent thereto to which the hearing may
be adjourned, the complainant does not
appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding
anything hereinbefore contained, terminate
the proceedings, unless for some reason he
thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the
case to some other day:
Provided that :
(a) where the complainant is represented
by a pleader or by the ofiicer conducting I
the prosecution or
where the Magistrate is of opinion
that the personal attendance of the
complainant is not necessary, the Magi-
strate may dispense with the attendance
and proceed with the case.
The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so
far as may be, apply also to cases where the
non-appearance of the complainant is due
' to his death. '
An order terminating the proceedings under
sub-section (1) shall, subject to the provisions
of sub-section (4), have the same effect as an
order of acquittal.
Where the proceedings are terminated under
this section, the court may. if it is satisfied
onthe application of the complainant that
he was prevented by sufficient cause from
appearing, make an order setting aside the
order of termination upon such terms, as to
costs or otherwise, as it thinks fit and shall
' appoint a day for proceeding with the case.
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Provided that no such application shall be enter-
tained efter the expiry of a period of thirty days from
the date on which the proceedings were terminated.
Sd/-
(Y.V. ANJANEYULU)
' MEMBER
Sd/-
(MAHESH CHANDRA)
MEMBER
I7
(5) No order shall be made under sub-section (4)
uniCs..\. notice or the application thereunder
has been served on the accused".
THIRD RECOMMENDATION
7-4. Amendment pertaining to eonfermem
powers on the trial court as well.--Fina1ly. having
considered the earlier recommendation made in the
14th Report and reiterated in the 41st Report of the
Commission, it is recommended that theqprovieibn
relating to inherent powers of the Court to do
etc. be expanded, so as to confer power on criminal
courts other than the High Court. Otherwise, even
a maintenance _application under section 125 Cr. P.C.
dismissed for default in appearance may not be re-
stored on the reasoning that courts exercising juris-
diction under Cr. P.C. (except High Court) do not
possess inherent powers. Our recommendation
accordingly is that present section 482 of the Code
my be renumbered as section 482(1) and a new
sub-section should be added in that 'section, as
under;- » E
"(2) Criminal courts other than the High Court
shall also have inherent powers to make such
orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse
of the process of the court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice." C
7-5. We recommend accordingly.
sa/-
(M.P. THAKKAR)
CHAIRMAN
Sd/-
(P.M. BAKSHI)
MEMBER V
sd/- , C'. .
(G.V.G.i KRISHNAMURTY) ,
' MEMBER sEcaE'rA1(Y.
NEW DELHI. DATED THE 30TH JULY. 1991.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
CHAP,TER 11
1, 'AS. Gauraya V. S.N. Thakur, (1986) Cri. L.
J. 1074 (SC) : 1986 (2) SCC 709.
CHAPTER III
1. Ram Das v. State of U.P., AIR 1952 All. 926,2
A "927, para 5 (Bind Basni Prasatl J).
2. -Bishambar Dayal v. State of U.P., (1958) All.
~ 1...]. 489, 490 (R. K. Chowdhary J).
3. Deepak v. State of Maharashtra.(1985) Cri.
L. J. 23, para 6 (Born) (Kantharia, J).
4. Bibhuti Mohan Roy v. Sadirnoni Dassi, (I909)
Cri. L. J. 287, 288, 289 (Cal.) (Harington and
Brett JJ). '
5. Haji Sahnjuddin Ahmad v. Banamali Das,
(1983), Cri. L.J. (NOC) 173 (Gau.) (K. N.
Saikia, J).
6. -K. Kunhammad Haji v. Emperor. AIR 1923
Mad. 426, 432, 433 (Oldfield and Devadoss
JJ).
7. Ram Autar Thakur v.
1957 Pat. 33.
8. Keshav Lal V. Gaveria, AIR 1952 Raj. 50,
51, 52, para 4 and 7 (Wanchoo CJ and Bapna
J).
9. Raj Mallaiah v. Neeradi Naradayya. (1959)
Andh. Law Times 227, 228 (srinivasachari,
J).
10. S. N. Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1971)
Cri. L. J. 1056, para 3 (AP) (Venkateshwara
Rao. J).
State of Bihar. AIR
_11. Mina Ram V. Jivlu Budhu, (l974) Cri. L. J.
718. 719 (H.P.) (D. 13. Lal J).
12. Bhanu v. Vilasini, (I980) Ker. Law Times,
13. 15. para 3 -4- (Narayana Pillai J).
13. Ranga Rao v. Emperor, (1912) 13 Cri_ L__]_
710, 23. ML] 574, cited in Narra Appayya,
AIR 1923 Mad. 276 (1).
14. Appayya v. Darai Venkatappaya, AIR
1923 Mad. 276 (1) (Wallace J).
Subrahmaniam v. Ramaswami, AIR 1949 Mad.
154 (Govind Menon J).
(13)
16. Sankata Singh v. State of U.P.. AIR 1962 SC
1208 ; (1962) Supp. S.C.R. 817.
17. 'Bindeshwari Prasad v. Kali Singh, AIR 1977
SC 2432.
18. State of Orrisa v. Ram Chander Agarwala. AIR
1979 sc 87. 91, paragraph 17.
19. A. S. Gauraya v. S. N. Thakur, (1986) Cri.
L.J. 1074 (SC) 2 1986 (2) scc 709.
20. Bindeshwari Prasad v. Kali Singh. An": 1977.
sc 2432.
CHAPTER IV
1. Kamla Devi v. Mahma Singh, (1989) Cri. L.
J. 1866, 1871, (P & H) (D B) paragraph 7 and
8.
2. B. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat. (1985)
Marriage Law Journal 561 (S C).
3. A Prema Jain v. Sudhir Kumar Jain. (1980) 3
Marriage Law Journal 17_(Delhi): (I980) Cri.
L. J. 80 (Del).
4. Surhid Kamra v, Neeta,
Law Journal 193 (Delhi).
5. Bindeshwari Prasad v. Kali Singh, AIR 1977
SC 2432. .
6. Paragraph 7-1 - infra.
CHAPTER V
1. A. S. Gauraya v. S. N. Thakur (1986) Cri. L.
J. 1074 (sc) : 1986 (2) scc 709.
CHAPTER VI
1. Law Commission of India, 14111 Report (Re-
form of Judicial Administration), pages 820-
821, paras 1 to 3.
2. Law Commission of India, 41st'Report (The
' Code of Criminal Procedure, 1988), page 359,
para 46-23.
3. A. S. Gauraya v. S. N. Thakur, (1986) Cri.L.
J. 1074 (SC) : 1986 (2) SCC 709. '
CHAPTER VII
1. Chapter V. supra.
(1988) 3 Marriage '
APPENDIX 1
SECTIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, OFFENCES
WHEREUNDER ARE SUMMONS CASES
Criminal Conspiracy _.
120 B (2) " '
Armed Forces
135 to 140
Public Tranquillity
153.-to 158, 160 -
Public Servants
163." 166. 168 to 171
Elections
171 Fto 171 I
Lgwfql jllthority of public. servants
172-180, 182-190
Faiuf ievldence and public justice
202 to 204, 3206 to 210, 211 (para 1).
212 (in: para) 213 (last para), 214 (last para),
215; '216'?(last para), '21~7,_221 (last para), 223.
224, 225 '(first para), 225A(b), 225-B, 227, 228,
228A. 229. J ' '
Coils and Government Stamps
254. 262
Weights anal Measures
264 1o"267 '
.
v 1 4-515 'Luvi/943 @192 Public Health, Safety convenience, Decency Morals 269 to 280, 282 to 291, 292, 294, 294A Religion 295 to 298 Human Body 304A, 309, 318, 323, 334, 336 to 338, 341 to 343, 345, 346, 352 to 358, 374,376 (0116. part), 375,4 lhoperty
385.-403, 417, 421, 422, 423, 424, 426, 427, 428, 434, 447, 448, 451, 453. 461 Docunients and Property Marks' 465, 471. 482. 483, 489, 489E Qriininal Breach of Contract of Service' ' 1491, Marriage Defamation' 500-501, 502 Orilninal Intimidation; insult and annoyance ' 504, 506 .(first para), 508, 509-510 APPEN D lX- IX.
LIST OF SUMMONS CASES UNDER OTHER ACTS ._.__Z..
S. Acts Section(s) * No. l 2 3 4 ' ' 1. Advocates Act, 1961 W' 45
2. Agricultural Produce 4 (Grading and Marking) Act, 1937.
-'-a. 'Agricultural Produce 4s Corporation Act, 1956.
4. Air Corporation Act, 43 I959.
5. Air Craft Act, 1934 10 ll 1 1A 11B I All. \ I 12
6. Ancient Monuments 30 and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. '7. Ancient Monuments 16 Preservation Act, 1904.
8. Architect Act, 1972. 36 37 38 «Penalties for persons illegally practising in Courts and before other authorities.
Penalty for unauthorised marking with grade designation mark.
Penalty for counterfeiting grade designation mark.
Using the name of the Warehousing Corporation in any prospectus or advertisement with written consent of the Corporation.
Penalty for wrongful withholding of property of the Corporation.
Penalty for acts in contravention of rules made under the Act. Penalty for flying so as to cause danger.
Penalty for failure to comply with directions issued u/s 5A of the Act.
Penalty or failure to comply with directionsissued u/s 9A of the Act. Penalty for abetment of ofi'ences.
Penalty for destruction, removal, injuring a monument, etc. Penalty for destruction, removal, injuring, etc. the ancient monuments.
Penalty for falsely claiming to be registered.
Penalty for using title of Architect by unregistered persons/firms.
Penalty for failure to surrender Certificate of registration.
Penalty 1 5 Imprisonment upto 6 months Fine upto Rs. 500/-
lmprisonment upto two years or fine or both.
Imprisonment upto six montls or line upto Rs. 1000/- or both.
. .
Imprisonment upto? one ya: .
or fine upto Rs. moo/-. Imprisonment upto *2 yeast and fine. ' i ' Imprisonment upto 0 pqiod of six months or fire upto Rs. l000/- or with both. Do.
tit Do.
.4. «-3.5 -
Same as for the offences, , L _ Imprisonment upto three months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both.
Imprisonment upto three months or fine upto Rs. 5000/- or both.
Fine upto Rs. I000/-.
Ist Oflence Fine upto Rs. 500/-.
2nd and subsequent ofence Imprisonment which may extend to six months or file upto Rs. l000/- or both.
Fine upto Rs. 100/-.
(20)'.':3'.,e, 1 .
W 2
9. Arms Act, 1959.
10. Bombay Companies Act, I 949 A 21 3 4 5 _ _ 25(2) Penalty for acquiring, possessing imprisonment upto one year ' or carrying any fire arm in or fine or both. contravention of Section 9(a)(i) V 25(3) Failure to intimate the sale or Imprisonment upto 6 months transfer of firearm. or line upto Rs. 500/- or both.
25(4) Failure to deliver licence Do. when required.
25(5) Failure to disclose name or Imprisonment upto 6 months address or giving a false or fine upto Rs. 200/- or both. name and address.
29 Purchase of arm from unauthorised Imprisonment upto 6 months person or delivering of any arm and fine upto Rs. 500/- or to an unauthorised person. both.
30 Contravention of licence or Imprisonment upto three provision of the Act or rule months or fine upto Rs. 5(1)/~ for which no punishment is or both. provided in the Act. . p 31 Penalty for subsequent offences. Double the penalty provided for the offence.
46(2) Failure to produce any book, Fine upto Rs. 20(l)/- account or other document by a person having the duty to produce. 'W19 46(3) Deposit in contravention of Fine to the extent of twice an order. the amount of deposit.
46(4) Contravention of any provision
11. Indian Boilers Act, 1923 22 | I 412'. Cantonments Act, 1924 23 24 25 118 119(5) 1 19(6) 1 24(2) 125 of the Act, rule or direction.
Failure or refusal of an owner of Boiler to :
(i) surrender a provisional order:
(ii) produce the certificate or provisional order when called upon to do so;
(iii) to make over to the new owner of a boiler a certificate or provisional order.
Illegal use of boiler Other penalties Tampering with register mark Causing nuisance Allowing the dog to be at large in street Keeping Ferocious dogs Use of cinematograph instrument in unlicensed premises.
Letting of fire works' causing danger.
Fine upto Rs. 2000/-.' Fine upto Rs. 100/-
Fine upto Rs. 500/-
Fine upto Rs. 500/-
Do.
we wipes. ; ' Fine upto 100/I-.V Fine upto 200/-L"
Do.
Fine upto 50/-.
Cardamom Act, 1965
14. Cattle Trespass Act, ' . 1 11:71:.
15. Census Act, 1948
16. Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
17. Central Industrial Security Force Act,A1'968.
18. Central Reserve Police Act. 1949.
19. Central Silk Board Act, 1948.
184 l93 213 21 23 24 25 26 24 26 27 11(1) 11(2) 17 22 23 24 27 18 10 14 22 4 Illegal erection and re-erection Destroying or tampering with number or names.
Carrying on trade without licence Contravention of order controlling the import or export of cardamom.
Making of false returns Penalties for obstruction to olficer or member of board in the discharge of duty. Contravention of price control Other penalties for contravention of the provision of the Act not specifically provided Forcibly opposing the seizure of or rescuing thetcattle. Damage caused to land, crops, or public roads by.Pigs. Failure of keeper to perform duties Failure to perform' duties under the act or obstruction, etc. Abetment Connivance at offences Vexations search, seizure etc. by Central Excise Oflieer Giving of false information leading to arrest or search Failure of olficcr toperform duty. ' . Carryinglof excisable goods "in a vessel other than prescribed. Obstruction to officers. Neglect of duty. I Offences by member ot'Zt_tre.»t'orce. g .
Filingvof false return, failure to produce record.or obstruction to any ofiicer of the_Board. Fine upto 500/-». '- Fine upto Rs. 25/-. Fine upto Rs. 200/-. Imprisonment upto one year or fine or both.
Fine upto Rs. 500/- Imprisonment upto six months or fine upto Rs. l0O0/- or both. Do.
Do.
Imprisonment upto six m()nths or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both Fine Rs. 10/-
Fine uptolRs.l50/-.' I Imprisonment upto six months and fine upto Rs. 1000/-. Fine upto Rs. I000/-. Imprisonment upto six months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both. Fine'upto~Rs.;20.00/- . Imprisonment upto 2 years or fine upto Rs. 2000/- or both. Imprisonment for 3 months or fine upto three months' pay or both.
Imprisonment upto six months or fine upto Rs. l0O0/- or both.
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. l0O0/- or both. Imprisonment upto 6 months Imprisonment upto one year or fine upto three months' pay or both.
Imprisonment upto one year or fine upto Rs. 1000/- or both. ' Marriage'
21.
22.
23.
24.
25. 27.1 ' Armance Act, 1876
28. ~ "Act, 1940.-
.3. .2
29. Restraint Act, .1929. Children Act, l960. Cineinatograph Act, A 1950 Citizenship Act, 1955 Civil Defence Act, 1968 Commission of Enquiry Act, I952 Copyright Act, 1957 The Dramatic Per- Drugs and Cosmetics Drugs and ;Magic - ; Remedies (Objectionable . Advertisement) A , ,. ,, Act,-1.954.
l0-A 65 67 68 27A 28 29 Adult male (asst; 18 yearsforilliin age but below 21 years) marrying at child.
Male adult above 2] years of age marrying a child. Soleminising a child marriage Penalty for parent/guardian concerned in child marriage. ('ruelty to child Employment of children for begging.
Giving intoxicating liquor or dangerous drug toa child. Exploitation of child employees Using or permitting the use of Cinematograph or premises in contravention of Act or rules. Making of false representation Neglect/refusal to discharge functions.
Acts calculated to bring the Commission or any number thereof into disrepute. Possession of plates for purpose of making infringing copies. Making of false-entries Making of false statements. Disobeying prohibition Manufacture, sale, etc. of cosmetics in contravention of Chap IV and rules. Non-disclosure of the names of manufacturer."
Using Report of Analyst for advertising. ' Contravention of the, provisions of the Act. -
5 .3 lmprisonrrientfupto 115 (hys or fine upto"Rs. .l900/- or both.
Imprisonment upto three months and fine.
Do.
Do.
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine or both.
Imprisonment upto I or fine or both.
Fine upto Rs. 200,"-
year Fine upto Rs. l000/-. Fine 'upto l000/'~._ I mprisonment upto sixmonths or fine or both.
Fine upto Rs. 500/-
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine or both.
Imprisonmentupto two years and fine.
Imprisonment upto one year or fine or both.
Do.
Imprisonment upto_ three months or 'fineor both.
Imprisonment upto one year or line upto Rs. 500/- or both. Do.
Fine upto Rs. 500/-.
Imprisonment upto six months or fine or both.
1 2 2 3
30. ilindian Electricity 40 Act, 1910.
4! 42 43 44 45 46 47
31. Electricity (Supply) 77 Act, 1948.
32. Emblems and Names 5 (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
33. Enemy Property Act, 20(1) . .1968 20(2) 20(3) 20(4)
34. Indian Explosives Act, 9B(l)(b) 1884. .
9(B)(1) (C) " 55. Factories Act, 1943., 92 95 96 97 98 M 1:
Maliciously wasting energy or injuring work.
Unauthorised supply of energy by non-licenses. Illegal or defective supply or for non-compliance with order. Illegal transmission or use of energy.
Interference with meters, etc. Extinguishing public lamps. N egligently wasting energy. Penalty for offences not otherwise provided for.
Failure to comply with or give effect 5 Imprisonment upto 2* 'yurs or fine upto Rs. 1000/-or both. Fine upto Rs. 3000/- Fine upto Rs. INDI- Fine upto Rs. 500/- Do.
Fine upto Rs. 300/- Fine upto Rs. 200/- Fine upto Rs. 100/- Fine upto Rs. 500/- to any direction, order or requirement. Improper use of prohibited names and Fine upto Rs. 500/- emblems for any trade, business, etc. Payment made to enemy, enemy sub- ject or firin.
Non-registration of securities in terms of orders of the Custodian. Non appearance before custodian when called upon to give information or produce record. Non submission of returns of enemy properties. Possession, use, sale or transport of explosive in contravention of the rules made under the Act or condition of licence. Any other contravention Contraveution of any provision of the Act or the rules. Second or subsequent offence u/s 92 Causing obstruction of Factory Inspector.
Wrongful disclosure of result of analysis.
Contravention of any provision by worker.
Using false certificate of fitness. Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine or both.
Do.
Fine upto Rs. 500/- Do.
Imprisonment upto 2 -years or fine upto Rs. 3000/- or both.
Fine upto Rs. 1000/- Imprisonment upto 3 months or line upto Rs. 2000/- or both. , ' Imprisonment upto 6* months or fine upto Rs. 5000/~ or both.
Imprisonment upto 3 months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both. Do.
I 1'.
Fine uptd Rs. '20/-E 2"
Imprisonment upto one month or fine upto Rs."50/- or both.
2--'---~~ ---
36. Indian Fisheries Act, 1897 25
37. Foreign Exchange Regula- 57 tion Act, 1973.
38. Indian Forest Act, 1927.
39. Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976.0
40. Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952.
41. Gold Control Act, 1968.
42,- Irnpovt and Export (Control) Act. 1947.
58(1) 58(2) 62 41 63 33 25 20 20 86 87 91 94 95(1) 96 5A of waters.
Contravention of the order made by adjudicating officer, Appellate Board or High Court.
Vexations search by officers of Enforcement.
Giving of false information thereby causing arrest or search.
Wrongful seizure of property.
Breach of rules regarding transportation of timbers. Counterfeiting or defacing marks on trees and timbers.
Illicit felling of trees, illegal breaking up of forest land. etc. Offences of failure to comply with the provisions of the Act, for which no separate punishment has been provided.
Contravention of provisions of Chapter IV of the Act.
Owning or keeping place used for entering into forward control in goods.
Failure to make declaration. Failure to submit returns. Allowing premises to be used as refinery. ' Contravention of the provisions of the Act for which no separate 0' punishment is provided for.
Wrongful seizure of property Failure of Gold Control 'Oflice to perform duties. i Giving of false information leading to arrest, search or seizure.
Contravention or order made by adjudicating authority and Appellate Authority.
"iii" 4 5 99 Permitting double employment of Fine upto Rs. 50/- child.
4 Destruction of fish by explosives Imprisonment upto 2 months in inland waters and on coasts. or fine upto Rs. 200/- 5 Destruction of fish by poisoning Do.
Imprisonment upto 2 years or fine or both.
Fine upto Rs. 2000/-
Imprisonment upto 2 years or fine upto Rs. 2000/- or both.
Imprisonment upto six months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both.
Do.
Imprisonment upto -2 years or fine or both.
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both.
Imprisonment upto l . year or fine upto Rs. l000/- or both. ' 4 I Imprisonment upto one year or fine or both.
Imprisonment Iupto. 2 years or fine or both. ' -. , I)o. "
Do.
Imprisonment upto onelyear or fine or both. ' "' 0' Imprisonment upto 3!nltonths. or line or both.
ffine uto<1ts.2nnuy+ »r2 lmprisomnent upto} on! year or fine or both.
Imprisonment upto two years or fine or both.
Do.
Viv 26 01" "2 .0 3 4 5
43. Industrial Disputes Act. 26 Illegal strikes and lockouts. Imprisonment upto one l947. month or fine upto Rs. 1000/- or both.
27 Penalty for mobilisation to take Imprisonment upto one month part in strike, etc. or fine upto Rs. 1000/- or both.
28 Financial aid to illegal strikes Do. and lockouts. A 29 Breach of settlement or Award. Imprisonment upto '6'months V or fine or both.
30 Disclosing of confidential Imprisonment upto 6 months information. or fine upto Rs. 1000/- or both.
30A Closing down of undertaking with Imprisonment upto 6 months complying with provision of the Act. or fine upto Rs. 50()0/- or both. _ ._ ' p 31 Other offences under the Act. Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. 1000/- or both.
4'4."Insecticides Act, 1968. 29 Import, manufacture, sale distribu- Imprisonment upto 2 years tion, use of insecticides in con. or fine upto Rs. 2000/- or
1.: - 5 i ' travention of ' the provision both. .2 ' = ' ofthe Act. ' "1152" Lepers Act, 1898 A ll Employing lepers in prohibited trade Fineupto Rs. 50/'-;'V -A 14- r 5
46. Levy Sugar Price ' 13 Default in crediting-the fund, any Imprisonment upto 2 years Equalisation Fund Act, excess realisationlor failure to or fine upto Rs. 5000/- or 1976. , maintain or produce accounts, both,
- A record and to fumlsh in_f_ormation.
_ I 4%' Indian Lunacy Act, 92 Improper reception or detention Imprisonment upto 2 years 1912. of lunatics. ' ' ' 'V or fine or both.
48. Marking of Heavy 4 Failure to p mark weight on Fine upto Rs. 500/-.' Packings Act, 1951. the heavy packings for transport ' i ' . . by sea or inland water. ' Maternity Benefit Act-, A i 21 Contravention of the provision of Imprisonment upto 3 months 1961. p _ . the Act by employer. or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both. 22 obstructing the "Inspector. . Do. '
50. Indian Medical Degree' 5 Conferment of degree', etc. in a Fine upto Rs. 500/-. _ Act, 19l6._ A , . . wrongful manner.
- ' ~ 6 Falsely assuming or using Fine upto Rs. 250/-. ' 1__ ,_ _. ~medical_t_itles.
51. Medical and Toilet 7 Production or manufacture of Imprisonment upto 6 months Preparations (Excise diitiable goods with licence, or fine upto Rs'. 20(1)/-con bash. Duty) Act, 1955. - . gor evading excise duty or failure ' . , V _ .
to supply information. '
52. Metal Token Act.
188953. Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961
54. Dangerous Machines (Regulation) Act, 1983
55. Emigration Act, 1983
56. Intelligence Organi- sations (Restrictions of Rights) Act, 1935
57. National Services Act, 1972
58. Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 5--515 Law/93"
17(1) 17(2) 18 29(1) 29(2) 30 31 32 .31
24(1) 24(2) 24(4) 24(3) 26 70 27 4 5 Connivance at the offence under the Act Wrong seizure by Excise Officer.
Wrong information leading to arrest, etc. Failure of Excise Officer in performing duty. Use or possession of metal token as coins.
Receipt of any metal as coin by local authorities or railway. Obstructing the Inspector in performance of duty. Failure to produce record. Using false certificate of fitness. Contravention of provision regarding employment of motor Transport workers. Other oflences.
Contravention of any provision of the Act or rule or'order under the Act.
Illegal emigration, furnishing of false information, disobeying the orders, charge of excess amount from emigrants, or cheating an emigrant. Attempt to commit above offence. Abetment. I Contravention of any term or condition of emigration clearance.
Contravention of restrictions to form association, freedom of speech, etc. Contravention of the provision for which no penalty prescribed separately under the Act. Causing damage, alteration or obstruction or interference etc. with canal or drainage work. Imprisonment upto and fine upto Rs. 500/- or both.
Fine upto Rs. 2000/--. Imprisonment upto 2 years or fine upto Rs. 2000/- or both. Imprisonment upto 3 months or fine upto 3 months' pay or both.
Imprisonment upto one year or fine or both. "
Fine upto Rs. 10/-
Imprisonment upto 3 months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or Do. ' ' Imprisonment upto one moitflt' or fine upto Rs. 50/- or bdtli.
Imprisonment upto 3 month. or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both.
Do.
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. l0JJ/- or both.
Imprisonment upto _ years?' and fine upto Rs. 2(b0/-.
Do.
Do.
Imprisonment upto onezyeari or' fine upto Rs. 2000/- or botl§"' Imprisonment upto 2" years i or fine upto Rs. 20J0/- or both.
Fine upto Rs. 500/-.
Imprisonment upto one month or fine upto Rs. 50/- or both.
231 2 3 4 59 ,- Northern Indian Ferries 21 Breach of provision as to tablc ' 1319 pp and list of tolls. '7 7' '\" ' ' ' ' ' I ' 22 Taking unauthorised toll.-
23 Breach of rules.
25 Offence by passengers. LG- avoiding payment of toll, obstruction, etc. 26 Maintaining private ferry within prohibited area.
28 Rash navigation and stating of timber.
60. Act, 1952 12 Falsely representing to be Notary.
61. Obstruction in Fairways 9 Breach of rules. A9. _,1.381
62. Orplknges and other 24 Contravention of the provisions Charitable Homes of the Act, rules. regulation (Supervision and direction or order. control)» Act, 1960
63. pagan Act, 1967 12(1) Furnishing false information, . ; failure to produce passport, using passport of another person, etc. 12(2) Abetment.
12(3) Contravention of a condition of passport of travel document.
64, Indian Patent and 78 Wrongful use of words 'Patent Oflice'. Designs Act, 1911 78B Contravention of directions.
65. P&'oleum Act, 1934 23 Contravention of the provision of the Act or the rules.
66. Petroleum Pipelines 15 Causing obstruction to any (Acquisition of right person doing an act under the Act. otuser of land) Act, 1963. .. _
67. Pharmacy Act, 1948 41 Falsely claiming to be registered. 42(1) Dispensing by unregistered persons 43 Failure to surrender certificate of registration.
68. Poisons Act, 1919 ,6 Unlawful importation, etc. 5 Fine upto Rs. 50/: N ' Fine upto Rs. I00/-.
Do.
Fine upto Rs. 50/-.
Fine upto Rs. 500/-.
Imprisonment upto 3 months or fine upto Rs. 500/-or both.
Imprisonment upto 3 months or fine or both.
Imprisonment upto six months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both.
Imprisonment upto 3 months or fine upto Rs. 2§0/- or both.
Imprisonment upto 6 month's orfine upto Rs. 2000/- or both.
Do.
Imprisonment upto 3 months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both.
Fine upto Rs. 200/-.
Imprisonment upto 2 years or fine or both.
Imprisonment upto one month or fine upto Rs. 1000/ or both.
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine or both.
Imprisonment upto 6 month or fine upto Rs. 1000 or both.
Do.
Fine upto Rs. 50/-.
Fine upto Rs. 500/- (convic- tion) Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. 1000/- or both (second or subsequent conviction).
1 2 ' 69. Police Act, 1861i I
70. Police Forces (Res~ triction of Right) Act, 1966 The Police (Incitement _toDissatisfaction) Act, 1922 72!. lndianvPorts Act, I908
71. 3 4 l9 Refusal' to serve as special Police Oflicer.
28 Refusal to deliver up certificates, etc. on ceasing to be a- police ofiicer.
29 Neglect of duty.
32 Disobeying the orders or violation of conditions of a licence.
34 Ofiences on roads;i.e. causing obstruction, inconvenience, etc. 4 Convention of restriction to form. association, freedom of speech. etc. 4 Causing dissatisfaction amongst the members of. police force.
10 Obstruction' within limits.
13 Fooling of Govt. moorings.
15 Obstruction. taovoonservator or his assistants. to board vessels or enter building.
16 Refusal to place member of the crew at the disposal ofthe conservator.
I9 Injuring buoys. beacon audmoorings 20 Wilfully loosening vessel from moorings.
2] Improperly descharing ballast.
22 Drawing vesselwitliin prohibited limits.
25 Boiler Ditch on board vessel within prohibitedliinits.
24 Drawing spirit by unprotected artificial light.
25 Contravening of direction as to warping.
26 Leaving out warp or hanger after sunset.
27 Discharge of Fire-arms in port.
28 Master omitting to take order to extinguish fire. ' 29 Search by unauthorised person.
30 Removing stores or injuring shores.
5Fine upto Rs. 50/-.
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. 200/- or both.
Imprisonment upto 3 months or fine upto 3 months pay or both.
Fine upto Rs.
Imprisonment upto 8 days or fine upto Rs. 50/-.
Imprisonment upto 2 years or fine upto Rs. 2000/- orboth Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. 200/- or both.
\ Fine upto Rs. 100/-.
Do.
Fine upto~Rs. 206/-.
Fine upto Rs. 25)-.
Imprisonment upto 2 years ori_in¢'dpto Rs. 2000/- or both.
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. 200/- or both.
Imprisonment upto 2 months and fine upto Rs. 500/-.
Fine upto :50)/-.
Fine upto 200/-.
Fine upto Rs. 200/-.
Do.
Do.
Fine upto Rs. 50/-.
Imprisonment upto 6 months orfineupto Rs. I000/-or both.
Fine upto Rs. 10014.
Do.
1 ".5. *3 4 31 Moving vessel without Pilot or permission of harbour master.
32 Absence of fire extinguishing- apparatus.
51 Failure to hoist number of vessel 53 Disobedience by'Pilot.
54 Disobedience, rule or order under the Act.
73. Post Ofiice Act, I898 49 Misconduct of persons employed to carry on deliver mail.
50 Withdrawal from duty without permission or notice, of person employedto carry or delivermail.
67 Detaining or opening of mail bag ' in the course of transmission.
68 Retaining or wrongly delivering mail bags.
69 Unlawful diverting letters.
70 Abettment of offences under . the Act.
74. Indian Power Alcohol 7 Contravention of the provisions Act, 1948. 'of the Act or any order issued thereunder.
' 75. Press and Registration" 12 Printing of book without giving of Books Act, 1867 the name of the printer, ' "' ""V ' ' 1 ' ' publisher and the place of printing[publication.
13 Keepingla press without making a declaration. : p ' ' A' " 14 Making false statement. ' 15 Printing or publishing _nev_vspaper without 'conforming' to rules._ .. » 16 Non-delivery of books or non{ supply' of maps to the .printeffV' l6A Failure to supply 'newspaper gratis. 16B Failure to supply copies V newspaper to Press" Regi'strar.
|9K Failure to furnish annual . I I ' reports and returns." V '_ A 19L Improper disclosure of information. .1147)'---"~ '-" I
76. Press (Objiietionable, 96 Keeping :press or publishing Matters)"Act, 1.95] I 30 a depot.
ziewspapers and without making 5 Fine upto Rs. 20.0/-.' " ' Fine upto Rs. 500/-.
Fine upto Rs. 1000/-. Fine upto Rs. 500/-.
Fine upto Rs. 100/-.
Fine upto Rs. 50/-.
Imprisonment upto one month or fine upto Rs. 50/- or both.
Fine upto Rs.-200/-.
Imprisonment upto 2 years and fine. ' , ' Imprisonment upto' 6 months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both. Same ' sentence as . provided under the Act for the offences.
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. 1000/- or both.
Imprisonment upto 6 momhs or fine upto Rs. 2000/- or both.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Fine upto Rs. 50/-.
Fine upto Rs. 50/- for each default.
Fine upto Rs. 50/-. for each default.
Fine upto Rs. 500/-.
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. l000/- or both.
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. 2000/- or both.
31'
77. Prevention 5; Cruelty to Animals__Act,'l960 .7 8-. ;1>reveution of Seditious Meetings Act, 1911 79'. Prisoners Act, 1394
80. Prize Chits and Money , Circulation Schemes , '_ _;.:(I_3anning) Act, 1978
81. Prize Competitions Act, 1955
82. Protection of Civil".
Rights Act, 1955 27 11 12 20 26 41 54 10 7A .... ..
4Disseminating unauthorised newspapers and unauthorised news sheet.
Treating animals with cruelty.
Protecting Phooka or doom-dev onvcow or other emllch' animal'. Contravention of the order or condition imposed by the Committee constituted under the Act.
Exhibition or training of animals etc. by a person not registered under the Act. ' ' ' Holding of public meetingsin. contravention of the Act. Delivery bf speeches in public places without permission.
Introduction or removal of prohibited articles into or from personand communication with prisoners. A ' Offences by prison subordinates.
Taking of steps to promote or conduct of any prize chits or money circulation scheme in A contravention of the Act.
Promoting any prize competition in contravention of the Act.
Failure to keep and submit the amount. . _ __ b Taking of steps to ppromot_e__.or conduct prize .competition.in_, Qoqptravention iofithe Act; ;; _ ' Enforcing religious -'disabilities.
Enforcing social';cijsa,l>iJjties.-A A Refusal to.-a.dmit.P.¢rsons to... I hospitals,etc-.-; . v 'AT.-'A,-___ ~ Refusal to sell goo"ds"or render servio.es.; .
Other olfence arising out of untouclrability. . ' " .j ' Unlawful compulsory labour."
Imprisonmenti 'for 'si)éVi'1i1c:_:'nth's' or fine or both. * Fine upto Rs. 50/--.
Imprisonment upto 2 years or fine upto Rs. 1000 or both.
Fine upto Rs. 200/--.
Fine upto Rs..500/-. A 0 J1 Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine or both.
Do.
_ Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. 200/- or both.
Imprisonment upto three ' months or fine upto Rs. 200/-
or both.
Imprisonment upto two years or fine upto Rs. 3000/- or both.
Imprisonment upto three months or fine upto Rs. 1000/- or both.
- Imprisonmentupto one month or fine upto Rs. 500/-or both.
V Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both.
Imprisonment upto six months and fine upto Rs. 500/-. ' Do.
Do.
32I 2 3 4 5
83. Gambling Act, 3 Owning or keeping or having Imprisonment upto 3 months 1867 charge of gaming houses. or fine upto Rs. 2000/.
4 Presence in gaming house for imprisonment upto one month the purpose of gaming. or fine upto Rs. 100/-.
7 Giving false names and addresses. Imprisonment uptoone month or fine upto Rs. 500/-.
13 Gaming and setting birds and Imprisonment upto one month animals to figert in_public street. or fine upto Rs. 50/-.
84. Public Premises ll Unauthorised reoccupation of Imprisonment upto one year (Eviction of Unauthorised the premises by theevicted person. or fine upto Rs. 1000/ or Occupants) Act, 1971 both.
85. Indian Railways Act, 99 Breach of duty by a railway Fine upto Rs. 20/-..
1890 servant.
I 100 Railway servant found in state Imprisonment upto] 2 years of -intoxication. or finenpto Rsjfl/~ at btfl. 100A Abondoning trains without Imprisonment upto 2 authority. or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both. 100B Obstructing runningdf trains. Imprisonment upto 2 years or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both. 101 Railway servant while on duty Do. ' endangering the safety of persons 102 Compelling passengers to enter Fine upto Rs. 20/-. carriages already full. 103 Omission to give notice Fine upto Rs. 50/-. of accident.
104 Railway servants obstructing Fine upto Rs._ 20/-. level crossings.
I05 ' Submission of false returns Imprisonment upto Al year or fine upto Rs. '500f4or both. 106 Giving false account of goods Fine upto Rs. l50/- for every quintal or part. ahead". 1* 107 Unlawfuiiy bringing dangerous Fine upto Rs. 500/-. or offensive goods upon a railway. I08 Interfering with means of Imprisonment upto 3 monflls communication in a train. or fine upto Rs. 250/- or both. ' I09 Enteringcompamrxent reserved Fine upto Rs. 20/-. or already full or resisting entry into :1 Compartment not full. - 110 Smoking !flifi0"G£IEQt~.0f the Fine upto Rs. 20/-. - . . 2 fellow passenger. .
I. ll Defacingpuflicnotitxes. Fine upto Rs. S0/-. I12 Travefiingor attnphgto Imprisonment upto 3 months travel without a proper or fine upto Rs. I00/-. pass or ticket.
ll4 Unauthorised sale of tickets Imprisonment upto 3 months I or fine upto Rs. 250/-. 116 Altering or defacing pass or Do.
ticket.
\ 33 I 2 117(1) it
86. Raihway Protection Force Ad. 1957 817; Rdormatory Schools ' met, 'F897
88. Registration of Births Ind Dedhs Act. 1969 3 117(2) 118 119 120 120A 121 122 123 124 125 I29 17 27 23(1) 23(2) 23(3) 23(4) 4 Travel by a person from infectious or contagious disorder.
Railway servant permitting such person to travel.
Entering carriage in motion or otherwise improperly travelling on a railway.
Entering carriage or other place reserved for females. Drunkennessor nuisance on a railway.
Convassing or hawking on railway Obstructi-ng a railway servant on the duty.
Trespass and refusal to desist from Trespass.
Disobedience of omnibus, tramear carriage or other carriaghs driver or conduct to obey directions of railway servant or police.
Opening or not properly shutting gates or level crossing.
Cattle trespass on railway area.
Endangering safety of persons travelling by railway, by roads or negligent out or omission.
Neglect of duty by members of the force.
Introduction or removal or supply of prohibited articles and communication with youthful . offenders.
Abetting escape of youthful offender.
Failure to give information regarding births/deaths or any other information required under the Act. Failure/refusal of Registrar to register births/ydeaths.
Failure of the doctor to issue a certificate of illness.
Any othervcontravenfion of the provision of the Act.
5"Fine uApto Rs. 20/-. Fine upto Rs. 100/-. Imprisonment upto one month or with fine upto Rs. 50/- or both.
Fine upto Rs. 100/-. Fine upto Rs. 50/-. Fine upto Rs. 250/-. Imprisonment upto sir.:months' or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both. Imprisonment upto 3 months or fine upto Rs. 150/- or both. Fine upto Rs. 20/-. Fine upto Rs. 50/- Fine upto Rs. l0/- per cattle in addition to the amount recoverable under Catik Tresspass Act.
Imprisonment upto *1 or fine or both.
year Imprisonment uptofi months Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. 200/- or both. Do.
Fine upto Rs. 50/- Fine upto Rs. 10/- I
89. Registratiofirlii
90.
- ..
92.
95. 2 Foreigners Act, 1939 Rice Milling Industry (Regulations) Act, 1958 Indian Sarais Act, 1867 Spirituous Preparations (Inter-state Trade and commerce) Control Act, 1955 'Indian Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Act, 1952.
. Standards of Weights I and Measures Act, 1976 3 5 13(1) 1 3(2) 9(1) 9(2) 53
54. 55 57 34 4 .
Contravention of any provision of the rules made under the Act;
(a) if a foreigner
(b) if not a foreigner Contravention or abetment or attempt to contravene provisions of the Act.
Failure to make statement or furnish information, record etc. Infringement of provisions of the Act or regulations. A Contravention of any provision of the Act.
Vexatious search, seizure, etc. Giving of false information causing arrest, search or seizure.
Improper use of standard marks.
Contravention of any other provision of the Act. ' Use of non-standard weight or measures.
Tampering with or altering standard.
Non-conforming to standards or weight by manufacturers,' » Inscription of weight or measure not conforming to weight or measure. _ Obstruction to 'Director or any person authorised in this behalf in performance Qf_ duties.
Trading. with or -using, non- specified weights.' measures or numbers. ' L Selling or H delivering _ goods or rendering service less than the quantity or number contracted.
Imprisonment upto one year or fine upto Rs. l000/- or both.
'Fine upto Rs. 500/-
Imprisonment upto one year or fine upto Rs. 10,000/- or both.
Imprisonment upto 3 months or fine upto Rs. 2000/- or both.
Fine upto Rs. 20/- and further penalty upto rupee one per day for every' day during which the offence continues.
Imprisonment upto one year or fine upto Rs. l000/- or both.
Fine upto Rs. 2000/-
Imprisonment upto one year or fine.
Fine upto Rs. 10,000/-
Fine upto Rs. 1000/-
Imprisonment upto 6 niontfis or fine upto Rs. 10007-orboth. Imprisonment upto _.2_._..; "years or fine upto upto Rs. 6000/- or both.
lmprisonment upto one year or fine upto Rs. 20()0/- or both.
Do.
v-
/ ;i..,.....
., :,:
1mpr;s.;;;g.ae;i;,i;.a,.g;.:' Imprisonment upto one year or fine "or both.
Fine upto Rs. 5000/- 952 « Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
96. Telegraph Wires.
- ' (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950 '
97. Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1.958 ..s ._.._j.._.._ ._...._- -._ ._ ..
3 58 64 65 66 67 70 7120A 21 22 23 24 25A 28 29A 30 32 (J
-79..
35 4Failure 'to maintain requisite records.
Export or import of weight or measure without having been registered under the Act. Export of commodity in packaged form not conforming to the standard weight or measure. importing non-metric weight or measure.
('ontravention of any provision of the Act for which no penalty otherwise provided.
Giving false information or false returns.
Vexatious action by oflicers. e Breach of condition of licence. Using unauthorised telegraph. Opposing establishment of telegraph on railway land. ' Intrusion into signal room, trespass on Telegraph Office.
Unlawfully attempting to learn contents of messages.
Injury to or interference with telegraphs lines or post.
Misconduct of telegraph oflicer.
Making or issuing of a document of a nature reasonable calculated to consent to be believed that the same' has been issued by or under the authority of D.G. Posts and Telegraphs.
Fraudulently retaining a message delivered by mistake.
Attempt to commit offence.' Failure to make a declaration.
Applying false trade marks, ._ trade discriptions, etc. Selling goods to. which a false trade mark or false trade, description is applied.
5. Imprisonment upto 6 months and fine.
Imprisonment upto six months and fine.
Fine upto Rs. 5000/-
Fine upto Rs. 5000/-.
Fine Rs. 2000/-
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. l000/- or both.
Imprisonment' upto .1 'year or fine upto Rs. 2000/- or both. Fine upto Rs. 1ooo/- ' Fine upto Rs. 50}-
Fine upto Rs. 1000/ on day- during which refund continues.
Fine upto Rs. 500/-
Imprisonment for one year. Fine upto Rs. 10.00/-.
Imprisonment upto 3'_ months or fine upto Rs.' 100/:
Fine upto Rs. 50/- H Imprisonment upto 2 years or fine or both.
Same penalty as prescribed for the oflenee.
Imprisonment upto 6 months or line or both.
Imprisonment upto 2 years or fine,_ or both. NOTE 36 83
98. Indian Treasure Trove 20 Act, 1878 21 99; Unlawful Activities 10 (Prevention) Act, 1967 12 100, Vslccination Act, 1880 22
101. Weekly Holidays Act, 9 1942
102. White Phosporus Matches . Prohibition Act, 1913 K)! -9- 10}. Wild Birds' and Animals ' 'Protection Act, 1912
104. Wild Life (Protection) 51 Act, 1972 S2 53
105. Indian Wireless Tele- 6(1) .»,,gm§hy Act, 1933
106.' Young Persons (Harmful 3 publication) Act, 1956
1. . 2.
, 3.
4 5Removal, sale, possession for sale goods, cotton yarn or thread which is not marked. False representation of a trade mark or registered.
Improperly describing a place of business as connected with trade mark ofiice-.
Falsification of entries in. the register.
Failure of the finder to give notice.
Abetment of above olfence.
Penalty for being member of unlawful association.
Use of an article in contravention of a prohibitary order.
Contravention of the provisions of the Act, rules or orders.
Contra-vention of the provision of the Act, rules or order.
Obstructing the Inspector to take sample.
Capturing, selling, buying or killing any wild bird or animal during close time.
Contravention of any provision of the Act or rule or order made the roimder. Attempts or abetments. Wrongful seizure.
Possession of any wireless telegrapliy. apparatus 'm contravention of the provisions of the Act.
Sale, hire, distribution of harmful publication.
The above list is not eiigustive but only illu--st-rative-. The above list covers only the Central Acts. There are such or similar State Acts. Besides the above, Acts, offences under the Motor Vehicle Act, Shop and Establishment Act, Municipal Acts are also triahle as summons oases. MGIPF-«S15 Law/93--l7-6-94----400.
Fine upto Rs. 1000/-
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both. Imprisonment upto six months or fine or both.
Imprisonment upto 2 years or fine or both.
Imprisonment upto one year or fine 01* both.
Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine or both.
Imprisonment upto 2 years and fine.
Imprisonment upto you and fine.
I Imprisonment upto 6 months or fine upto Rs. l000/- or both.
\ Fine upto Rs. 250/-
Fine upto Rs. 200/-
Imprisonment upto 1 month or fine upto Rs. l00/- or both.
Imprisonment upto 2 years or fine upto Rs. 2000/- or both.
Do.
Imprisonment upto six months or fine upto Rs. 500/- or both.
Fine upto Rs. 250/-
I mprisonmem upmimurontlis or fine or both.
' «