Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of the application has put two fold arguments. On one hand, he has argued that the impugned order, certified copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure no.4 to the supporting affidavit, is illegal because when complainant is absent in a complaint case under section 256 Cr.P.C, the magistrate was empowered to acquit the accused. In the present case, the magistrate has simply dismissed the complaint without applying his mind to the provisions contained in section 256 Cr.P.C, which is evident from the fact that the magistrate had not acquitted the accused instead he has simply written, complaint is dismissed.
His other argument is that the impugned order has been passed without application of judicial mind before invoking jurisdiction under Section 256 Cr.P.C, the magistrate should have formed the opinion whether there are some reasons or not, which make it desirable to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other date, as envisaged section 256 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred the following cases in support of his arguments;
1. S. Rama Krishna Vs. S. Rami Reddi, JT 2008(4) SC 593.

Now, I come to the case referred by the learned counsel for the applicant in S. Anand's case (supra), the Apex Court has noticed the provision contained in section 256 Cr.P.C and observed that when the witnesses of the complainant had been examined and the case was listed for defense evidence, dismissal of complaint under section 256 CR.P.C would not be a proper exercise of discretion.

In S. Rama Krishna's case (supra), the Apex Court has emphasized the need that discretion conferred by section 256 Cr.P.C must be exercised with care and caution.

Since in summons cases acquittal of accused, under section 256 Cr.P.C amounts to acquittal, the discretion to take recourse to the said section is coupled with heavy responsibility to ensure that all the preconditions prescribed for exercise of discretionary power to acquit the accused due to non- appearance of complainant are non-existent, more so in a complaint case whereby complainant invokes the jurisdiction of the Court to punish the accused under Section 138 N.I. Act.

A little lapse in discharging the responsibility, exercise of their discretionary power conferred by section 256 Cr.P.C may result in miscarriage .6.