- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mohd. Azeem v. A. Venkatesh And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Respondent 1. The petitioner had been attending the proceedings regularly but was absent on one hearing date because he had mistakenly recorded the wrong date. On 22-6-2001, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused due to this single non-appearance. The petitioner appealed to the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 24-7-2001. The petitioner then sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, which granted leave and heard counsel for both sides.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a complaint can be dismissed and the accused acquitted solely on account of the complainant’s absence on a single hearing date when sufficient cause for that absence is shown.
- Whether the Magistrate and the High Court erred in refusing to restore the complaint despite the complainant’s explanation.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that there was only one instance of the complainant’s non-appearance. While the High Court noted earlier delays in examining witnesses, the Supreme Court held that such circumstances did not justify dismissal of the complaint for a single day’s absence. The complainant’s explanation—that he had wrongly noted the date—was not disbelieved and constituted sufficient cause. The Court characterized the approach of both the Magistrate and the High Court as “very strict and unjust,” concluding that their orders resulted in a failure of justice. Consequently, the Court determined that the complaint should be restored and the trial allowed to proceed.
Holding and Implications
ORDERS SET ASIDE; COMPLAINT RESTORED.
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Magistrate dated 22-6-2001 and the High Court dated 24-7-2001. The complaint is reinstated, and the Magistrate is directed to resume the trial after issuing formal notices to the parties. Counsel are to ensure the parties appear before the Magistrate on or before 9-9-2002 to learn the next hearing date. The decision affects only the instant case and does not establish new precedent.
Order
1. Special leave to appeal is granted. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
2. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short “CrPC”) against Respondent 1 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad for an alleged offence under provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was prosecuting the complaint diligently and had been attending the Court of Magistrate on all dates excepting one because according to him he wrongly noted the date for hearing. Due to his absence on one day fixed for trial, the Magistrate by order dated 22-6-2001 dismissed his complaint and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC to the High Court and the High Court by the impugned order dated 24-7-2001 dismissed his appeal against which the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. From the contents of the impugned order of the High Court, we have noticed that there was one singular default in appearance on the part of the complainant. The learned Judge of the High Court observes that even on earlier dates in the course of trial, the complainant failed to examine the witnesses. But that could not be a ground to dismiss his complaint for his appearance (sic absence) on one single day. The cause shown by the complainant of his absence that he had wrongly noted the date, has not been disbelieved. It should have been held to be a valid ground for restoration of the complaint.
4. In our opinion, the learned Magistrate and the High Court have adopted a very strict and unjust attitude resulting in failure of justice. In our opinion, the learned Magistrate committed an error in acquitting the accused only for absence of the complainant on one day and refusing to restore the complaint when sufficient cause for the absence was shown by the complainant.
5. The impugned orders dated 22-6-2001 of the Metropolitan Magistrate and dated 24-7-2001 of the High Court respectively, are set aside. The complaint is restored and learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial of the case after issuance of formal notices to both the parties of the next date to be fixed in the case. The learned counsel appearing for the parties are directed to inform the parties to appear before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate on or before 9-9-2002 to ascertain the date fixed by the trial Judge for the case.
Alert