by The legal complexities surrounding cheque bounce cases in India are multifaceted, primarily governed by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A crucial procedural element in these cases is the presence of the complainant during court proceedings. However, the non-appearance of the complainant raises significant legal questions. The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of M/s. BSL Infrastructure Limited v. Mr. Rajwant Singh (SLP (Criminal) Nos. 867-874 of 2020), provided clear guidance on how magistrates should handle such situations under Section 256(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973.
Section 256(1) of the CrPC: Legal Provisions
Section 256(1) of the CrPC addresses the scenario where the complainant does not appear on the appointed day of the hearing. The provision states:
If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day.
This provision implies that while the magistrate has the authority to acquit the accused due to the complainant’s absence, there is also discretion to adjourn the hearing if deemed appropriate.
Supreme Court Decision: M/s. BSL Infrastructure Limited v. Mr. Rajwant Singh
In the case of M/s. BSL Infrastructure Limited v. Mr. Rajwant Singh, the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of the complainant’s non-appearance in cheque bounce cases. The key aspects of the ruling are as follows:
Judicial Discretion: The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 256(1) of the CrPC does not necessitate automatic acquittal of the accused upon the complainant’s non-appearance. The magistrate has the discretion to adjourn the hearing based on the circumstances.
Ensuring Justice: The Court emphasized that justice should not be compromised due to procedural technicalities. The magistrate should consider the reasons for the complainant’s absence and make efforts to ensure that the case is decided on its merits.
Legitimate Reasons for Non-Appearance: The Court pointed out that if the complainant provides a legitimate reason for their non-appearance, such as health issues or unavoidable commitments, the magistrate should consider granting adjournments rather than dismissing the complaint.
Balancing Rights: The ruling highlighted the importance of balancing the rights of the complainant and the accused. While the accused should not face indefinite trials, the complainant should not be unduly penalized for their absence if it is justified.
High Court Rulings: Supporting the Supreme Court’s Stance
Several High Court judgments have supported the Supreme Court’s position, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion and fair trials. These rulings advocate for a balanced approach where the magistrate thoroughly examines the reasons for the complainant’s absence before making a decision.
Practical Implications for Magistrates
Based on the Supreme Court’s guidance and supporting High Court rulings, magistrates handling cheque bounce cases should consider the following practical steps:
Assessing Reasons for Non-Appearance: Carefully evaluate the reasons provided by the complainant for their absence. Legitimate reasons should be given due consideration.
Exploring Alternatives: Consider alternatives such as issuing summons or warrants to ensure the complainant’s presence, accepting evidence through affidavits, or using technology like video conferencing to facilitate participation.
Granting Adjournments: If the complainant’s absence is justified, adjournments should be granted to provide them with an opportunity to appear and prosecute the case effectively.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in M/s. BSL Infrastructure Limited v. Mr. Rajwant Singh, along with supporting High Court rulings, underscores the importance of judicial discretion in cheque bounce cases. These rulings ensure that justice prevails over procedural technicalities, protecting the rights of both the complainant and the accused. Magistrates are encouraged to exercise their discretion judiciously, ensuring that the complainant’s non-appearance does not automatically lead to the acquittal of the accused. This balanced approach helps maintain the integrity of the judicial process and upholds the trust in financial transactions.
