The Bench Comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
Introduction:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the absence of a complainant on a date fixed by the court should necessarily result in the acquittal of the accused under Section 256 of the CrPC and its equivalent in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court examined the applicability of acquittal provisions when the complainant fails to appear, and whether such a failure should automatically lead to an acquittal.
Facts:
The appellant, Ranjit Sarkar, filed a complaint against Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and others. Due to COVID-19 restrictions and the appellant’s own illness, he could not attend the hearing scheduled for 16th April 2021. The Calcutta High Court acquitted the accused based on the absence of the complainant on that date, following the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure of the complainant to appear. The appellant argued that the date was not specifically for the appearance of the accused, but for the complainant to show cause for his earlier absence, and therefore, the acquittal should not have been granted.
Issues:
- Whether the absence of the complainant on a date set for a purpose other than the appearance of the accused automatically leads to the acquittal of the accused under Section 256 of CrPC (Section 279 BNSS)?
- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint despite the COVID-19 SOP in force, which prohibited dismissing cases for default due to the pandemic?
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The appellant contended that the High Court erroneously assumed that the absence of the complainant on the hearing date automatically warranted the acquittal of the accused, disregarding the actual purpose of the hearing, which was for the complainant to show cause. The appellant argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint, especially considering the ongoing COVID-19 restrictions and the High Court’s SOP against dismissals due to default during the pandemic.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent contended that the High Court correctly acquitted the accused under Section 256 of CrPC since the complainant’s absence led to the automatic dismissal of the case, as per the legal provisions.
- The respondents further argued that the complainant’s failure to attend the scheduled hearing led to an inability to proceed with the case.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court clarified that Section 256 of CrPC applies when the complainant fails to appear on the date specifically appointed for the appearance of the accused. The Court noted that the date in this case was not set for the accused’s appearance but for the complainant to show cause for his previous absence. Hence, the absence of the complainant on this date should not have automatically led to the acquittal of the accused. The Court observed that the High Court had wrongly equated dismissal of the case for the complainant’s absence with an automatic acquittal of the accused, which was not warranted under the circumstances. The Court also noted the existence of the COVID-19 SOP, which prohibited dismissal of cases due to the complainant’s absence under pandemic-related restrictions, and criticized the trial court for exceeding its jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint despite this SOP.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and clarified that acquittal under Section 256 of CrPC is not automatic when the complainant’s absence is for reasons not directly related to the appearance of the accused.
The Court revived the complaint, restored the criminal revision filed by the appellant, and directed fresh disposal of the case in accordance with the legal principles outlined in the judgment.
