PARAMESWARAN NAIR Vs. GOPINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question arises in these criminal appeals and hence these are being disposed of by a common Judgment. The appellant in all these cases is the Revenue Inspector, Shertallai Municipality, and the respondents are the accused in the relevant criminal cases, who have not paid profession tax levied on them. All these cases ended in acquittal of the accused under S.247 Cr. P.C. since the complainant, the appellant here, was not present when the cases were taken up on 28-10-1972. The order is similar in all cases and the same is extracted below:

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to a few cases where the scope of S.247 Cr.P.C, was considered. The decisions are reported in Johrilal v. Ramjilal AIR 1965 Rajasthan 19, Chinnam v. Chandramma AIR 1963 Orissa 90, In re Jamnabai v. Meghji AIR 1934 Bombay 130, Joseph v. Anchalo Fernandez AIR 1951 TC 25 and Union of India v. Lachhman AIR 1962 HP 57. In all these cases, the point emphasised is, where the Court may legitimately come to the conclusion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary and the case could not make any progress even if the complainant was present, he should dispense with the complainant's attendance and proceed with the case or adjourn it, as the case may be.

(3.) In the cases on hand, if the accused were present and had admitted the offences with which they were charged, the Magistrate could have straightaway entered conviction against them. If they did not admit the offence, the cases will have to be adjourned to another date for evidence to be taken. In none of these cases could the Magistrate proceed with the case or make any progress. In Union of India v. Lachhman, AIR 1962 HP 52, the learned judge who decided the case went to the extent of observing that to use the provisions of S.247 Cr.P.C. particularly where even with the presence of the complainant no progress could be made will amount to abuse of the process of Court. Although I do not go to that extent, the principle appears to be well settled that S.247 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to acquit the accused only when the Magistrate is satisfied either that the complainant has been deliberately absenting himself or when he could make no progress in the case if the complainant is present.