Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1003 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - funds insufficient - acquittal of accused - rebuttal of presumption - Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused? - HELD THAT:- It is clear that though P.W.1 was examined in the month of March 2009, the complainant had not appeared before the Magistrate. Hence, taken as 'no cross'. Subsequently, an application was filed and the same was considered by the Trial Court and passed an order on 29.05.2010. In spite of the Magistrate being lenient in considering the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, again the complainant did not choose to appear before the Magistrate. However, an opportunity was given till October 2010. No application was filed to recall the earlier order and the Magistrate proceeded to pass an order on merits and acquitted the accused. The main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the Magistrate ought to have dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution ought not to have proceeded to pass an order. The fact that P.W.1 has been examined before the Trial Court is not in dispute and documents-Exs.P1 to P8 are also marked - On perusal of the order sheet, it shows that the trial Judge has taken as 'no cross' when P.W.1 did not appear before the Trial Court and there is no order for expunging the evidence of P.W.1 and the same is only the submission made by the learned counsel for the accused before the Trial Court that the evidence was expunged. In spite of sufficient opportunity was given to the complainant for about two years, the complainant did not make any efforts to recall the earlier order and even though once the order was recalled and again, an opportunity was given, she did not appear before the Trial Court. The Trial Court proceeded to pass an order since the evidence of P.W.1 remains but only not rendered for cross- examination. The matter has not been decided on merits and the complainant has filed the complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. When the matter is not decided on merits, the reason assigned by the complainant is also that her son due to fall he has sustained the injuries and she was taking care of her son. This Court can set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration and to decide the matter on merits - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|