TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 814X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. The conduct of the complainant for the said purpose is of immense significance. He cannot allow a case to remain pending for an indefinite period. Appellant had been attending the court for a long time, except on some dates where when remained absent or was otherwise represented by his Advocate. He had to remain present in court. He attended the court on not less than 20 occasions after the death of the original complainant. If in the aforementioned situation, the learned Magistrate exercised his discretionary jurisdiction, the same, in our opinion, should not have been ordinarily interfered with. The High Court failed to take into consideration the fact that it was dealing with an order of acquittal and, thus, the principle o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y expired on 28.10.2003. Respondents herein filed an application for substitution of their names in place of the said Rami Reddy on 22.12.2003. Appellant filed an objection thereto. No order was passed on the said application. The counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant started representing the proposed heirs of the said Rami Reddy. It appears that on or about 18.4.2005 till 23.1.2006, i.e., on 14 dates nobody represented the complainant. 3. On 23.1.2006, noticing that the respondents had not been attending the court for a long time, the appellant was acquitted by the learned Magistrate in purported exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. An appeal was preferred there against before the Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in place of the original complainant. 7. Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Magistrate to pass an order of acquittal on non-appearance or death of the complainant. The complaint petition was filed in the year 2001. Rami Reddy died in 2003. A large number of dates were fixed for hearing of the case. Although, on some dates, the respondents were either present in court in person or were represented by their Advocate, but as noticed hereinbefore, continuously for about 15 dates fixed for hearing, they remained absent. The ingredients of Section 256(1) are: (i) that summons must have been issued on a complaint, (ii) the Magistrate should be of the opinion that for some reasons, it is not proper to adjourn the hearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Advocate. He had to remain present in court. He attended the court on not less than 20 occasions after the death of the original complainant. If in the aforementioned situation, the learned Magistrate exercised his discretionary jurisdiction, the same, in our opinion, should not have been ordinarily interfered with. 11. The High Court was exercising its jurisdiction under Sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal preferred by the respondents was against a judgment of acquittal. The High Court should have, therefore, exercised its jurisdiction keeping in view the limited role it had to play in the matter. 12. The High Court itself had come to the finding that the respondents were not interested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
