Judicature For Rajasthan High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, the petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 446, 482
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 s. 138
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. C.S.Mandora for the petitioner. Mr. B.P.Dadhich for the non-petitioner. BY THE COURT:- This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 30.11.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) was dismissed on his failure to appear before the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned as also the order sheets of the trial court dated 23.7.2005 and onwards. On
23.7.2005, the complainant was present, however, the accused non-petitioner failed to appear before the trial court, his bail 2 bonds were forfeited and he was summoned by a warrant and proceeding under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was initiated against him. The matter was posted on 12.9.2005. On 12.9.2005 also, the accused-non-petitioner did not appear. However, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to
20.11.2005. It appears that in between 12.9.05 to 20.11.2005, on 29.10.2005 the accused-non-petitioner appeared before the trial court and sought the matter to be taken up for his bail. The trial court, on surrender of the accused non-petitioner, released him on bail. This date was not known to the petitioner, obviously there is nothing on record to show that while preponing the date, the trial court intimated the petitioner complainant. On
21.11.2005, the petitioner complainant was not present and therefore, his evidence was closed and by order impugned dated
Operative part
30.11.2005, the trial court dismissed the complaint. Keeping in view the fact that the accused non- petitioner failed to appear before the trial court regularly, more particularly on 23.7.2005 and thereafter the matter was for securing his presence and the complainant had hardly any knowledge that when the accused non-petitioner would appear. In the circumstances, the reasons given by the petitioner for his non-appearance that on the relevant date his brother fell sick and was taken to hospital by him as also he was not aware of the date, appear to be bonafide. 3 Keeping in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Azeem Vs. A. Venkatesh and Anr. 2003 Cr.L.R (SC) 211 in my view, the order impugned dated 30.11.2005 deserves to be set aside and the complaint deserves to be restored. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 30.11.2005 passed by the trial court is set aside. The complaint filed by the petitioner is restored. Both the parties to appear before the trial court on 06.11.2006. No fresh notice is necessary. (H.R.PANWAR),J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 446, 482; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 11 Oct 2006. The bench was H R PANWAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.