JOY ABRAHAM Vs. JIJU THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a Magistrate acquit an accused against whom warrant is issued, under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) Which are the days referred to as, "the day appointed for the appearance of accused" and "any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned" in Section 256(1) of the Code The respondent-accused was summoned by the Magistrate, on a complaint filed by appellant before him. The accused failed to appear in Court in obedience of summons and hence, non-bailable warrants were issued against him, from time to time. Warrants were returned unexecuted. The proceedings stood over to a period of two years. On one of days on which warrant was returned unexecuted, complainant was absent. There was also no representation for him. Hence, Trial Court passed the following order:

(2.) The complainant-appellant (hereinafter, referred to as "complainant") is aggrieved by the above order and hence, this appeal. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that complainant was prosecuting the case vigilantly, and he was also appearing in Court on all posting dates during the period of two years of pendency. Though the case was pending before Trial Court for about two years, accused failed to appear and non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Still, his presence could not be procured. On the crucial day also, warrant was returned unexecuted.

(3.) On the other hand, complainant was promptly taking steps for issuing process to accused and he was prosecuting the case for 2 years vigilantly. His counsel could not reach on time in Court on the crucial day. In such circumstances, Trial Court ought to have given one more opportunity to complainant and adjourned the case, instead of acquitting accused, it is submitted. The case was pending for a period of two years only since accused was evading process. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and an opportunity may be given to complainant for prosecuting the case, it is submitted.