MOHAMMAD AZEEM Vs. A VENKATESH
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.