S. RAMA KRISHNA versus S. RAMI REDDY (D) BY HIS LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 1236 · Decided: 29-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 6 S. C.R. 1236 
A 
S. RAMA KRISHNA 
v. 
S. RAMI REDDY (D) BY HIS LRS. & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 755 of 2008) 
B 
APRIL 29, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
•( 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 256 and 378 -
Criminal proceedings for dishonour of cheque - Acquittal of 
c accused by magistrate in view of absence of the complainant 
in the proceedings for a long period - High Court setting aside 
acquittal - On appeal, held: Magistrate had rightly acquitted 
the accused in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction - High 
Court was not right in interfering therewith in exercise of its 
D jurisdiction uls 378 - Speedy trial is fundamental right of the 
accused - Orders passed by competent court of law and the 
provisions of Cr.PC. must be construed having regard to the 
1' 
Constitutional Scheme and legal principles - Interpretation 
of Statutes -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 -
E Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- s. 138 rlw s. 142. 
Proceedings u/s 138 r/w s. 142 of Negotiable 
Instruments act, 1881 were initiated on the complaint of 
the respondent. After death of the original complainant, 
though application for substitution was filed, no order was 
F passed in the application. As the legal heirs of the 
complainant remained absent on the dates of hearing of 
" 
the matter for a long period, the Magistrate acquitted the 
appellant-accused in exercise of his jurisdiction uls 256 
Cr.P.C. High court set aside the order of acquit1al holding 
G that the court should not have decided the case on 
technicalities. However, High Court found that it was the 
complainant's legal heirs who were interested in getting 
the matter prosecuted. Hence the present appeal. 
... 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
1236 
S. RAMA KRISHNA v. S. ~Ml REDDY (D) BY HIS 
1237 
LRS. & ORS. 
HELD: 1.1 The provisions of Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C. 
A 
mandate the Magistrate to acquit the accused unless for 
some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of 
the case. If an exceptional course is to be adopted, it must 
be spelt out. The discretion conferred upon the Magistrate, 
however, must be exercised with great care and caution. B 
The conduct of the complainant for the said purpose is of 
> 
immense significance. He cannot allow a case to remain 
pending for an indefinite period. The matter remained 
pending for more than five years. It was obligatory on the 
part of the respondents to press their application for c 
substitution. They did not file attendance of their 
witnesses. The case was fixed for hearing. [Paras 8 and 
10) [1241-A-B; 1240-F-G] 
1.2 Appellant had been attending the court for a long 
time, except on some dates when remained absent or was D 
., 
otherwise represented by his Advocate. He attended the 
court on not less than 20 occasions after the death of the 
original complainant. If in the aforementioned situation, 
the Magistrate exercised his discretionary jurisdiction, the 
same, should not have been ·ordinarily interfered with. 
E 
[Para 10) [1241-C-D] 
2.1 The High Court was exercising its jurisdiction 
under sub-Section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C .. The appeal 
preferred by the respondents was against a judgment of 
acquittal. The High Court should have, therefore, F 
> 
exercised its jurisdiction keeping in view the limited role 
it had to play in the matter. The High Court failed to take 
into consideration the fact that it was dealing with an 
order of acquittal and, thus, the principle of law which was 
required to be applied was that, if two views are possible, G 
a judgment of acquittal should not ordinarily be interfered 
o<( 
with. [Paras 11and12] [1241-E, G-H] 
2.2 The High Court itself had come to the finding that 
the respondents were not interested in getting the matter 
H 
1238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A prosecuted. Despite the same, it allowed their appeal, 
opining that any tis between the parties should be decided 
on merits rather than on technicalities. There exists a 
distinction between a civil case and a criminal case. 
Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused. The 
B orders passed by the competent court of law as also the 
provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure must be 
construed having regard to the Constitutional scheme 
and the legal principles in mind. [Para 12) [1241-F; 
1242-A-B] 
C 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
D 
Appeal No. 755 of 2008. 
From the Order dated 30.8.2006 of the High Court of 
Andhra Pra

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.