VASANTHI Vs. RAMASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the complainant in a case instituted on her complaint against the respondents for offences under Sections 494 and 495 read with 109, I.P.C. and is directed against the acquittal of the respondents under Section 248(1), Cr. P. C. by the trial Court on the ground that the complainant has failed to produce the witness for further cross-examination under Section 246(4), Cr. P. C. and also on the ground that the complainant herself was absent on the day fixed for such further cross-examination.

(2.) The appellant filed the case against the respondents and under Section 244, Cr. P. C. she had examined herself and another witness. On the basis of the evidence of these two witnesses, the trial Court had framed charges under Section 246(1), Cr. P. C. against the respondents for offences under Sections 494 and 495 read with 109, I.P.C., P.Ws. 1 and 2 had not been cross-examined when they were examined under Section 244, Cr. P. C. The respondents decided to cross-examine P.Ws. 1 and 2 under Section 246(4), Cr. P.C. The case had been posted to 13-3-1984 for cross-examination. On that date, the appellant was absent and the other witness P.W. 2 was also absent. The learned Magistrate examined the Court Peon Perumal as C.W. 1 to show that the appellant was absent and thereafter observing that the appellant had not proved her case against the respondents, acquitted them under Sec. 248(1), Cr. P.C. Challenging the acquittal, this appeal has been filed by the aggrieved complainant.

(3.) Thiru C. S. Dhanasekaran, the learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the procedure adopted by the trial Court in acquitting the respondents under Section 248(1), Cr. P. C. was contrary to the provisions of the Code as well as to the decided cases. The learned Counsel would submit that the trial Court having found the material sufficient to frame charges, had no further material after the framing of charges to record an acquittal on the ground that the complainant had not proved the case against the respondents. If the complainant or her witness was absent, it was the duty of the trial Court to get them, if need be, by coercive process provided under the Criminal Procedure Code. An acquittal under Section 248(1), Cr. P. C. on that ground could not be rendered.