BIMAL KISHORE MOHAPATRA Vs. SRIDHAR NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking leave to appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack in ICC No.37 of 1996.

(2.) THE petitioner as complainant filed the aforesaid Complaint Case inter alia praying to prosecute the opposite party for alleged commission of defamation, punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the opposite party had written a letter to the authorities of the complainant blackmailing and defaming him. In the Complaint Case cognizance of the offence was taken on 6.2.1996 and summons was issued to the accused. But then, it appears from the ordersheets that the complainant was not ready to prosecute the case till 1999. According to the complainant, all his attempts to obtain the letter dated 14.8.1995 to establish his allegations proved futile. In the year 1999 the trial of the case commenced. On 27.9.1999 the complainant -petitioner was examined in part and at his instance the case ws adjourned to 29.10.1999 and then to 6.12.1999 and again to 13.12.1999. In spite of sufficient opportunity being given to the complainant by the Court below, the complainant remained absence on 13.12.1999, as a result of which his evidence could not be recorded. On 13.12.1999 a petition was filed by the learned counsel for the complainant taking a plea that the complainant being ill as he was suffering from headreeling he was not able to attend the Court. In support of such plea no medical certificate had been produced. The accused -opposite party forcefully denied the plea of illness of the complainant and stated before the Court below that only in order to prolong the case and thereby causing harassment to him, the complainant was adopting dilly dally tactics and that way the Complaint Case was pending for the three years since 1996.

(3.) MR . Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner, forcefully submitted that the Court below has not properly exercised its power and the order of acquittal of the accused -opposite party is not just and proper. He also submitted that the Court below should have granted some more time to the complainant. But then it appears from the ordersheets that the Complaint Case was pending since 1996. The complainant after being examined in part for two days, did not appear in Court thereafter and therefore recording of his further evidence was deferred on several dates.