STATE OF HARYANA Vs. HARJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARJEET Singh accused respondent has failed to appear, in person or arrange the appearance of any counsel despite due notice of the actual hearing of the appeal against acquittal. Under these circumstances, there is no alternative but to dispose of this appeal in his absence.

(2.) THE trial Court, vide impugned order dated 31-5-1088, had acquitted the accused by dismissing the complaint for offence under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, in default of the complainant (SI Vilayati Ram) non appearance in court on 31-51988. The trial Court had passed that order under Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court order reads as under :-

(3.) THE proviso clearly provides that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of the opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, then the Magistrate may dispense with the personal attendance of the complainant and proceed with the case. In the case in hand as the complaint for offence under Section 182 IPC was filed by SI Vilayati Ram and Assistant Public Prosecutor was pursuing the case on behalf of the complainant, the trial Court was not legally justified in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused.