The Gujarat High Court’s decision in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs Gopal & Ors highlights the significance of preventing delays in legal proceedings. The dismissal of the complaint and acquittal serve as a reminder of the crucial need for the timely delivery of justice in our legal system. This judgment underscores the court’s stance against using tactics to prolong legal cases, ensuring a fair trial for all parties involved.
Facts
- The complainant, a Bank, provided financial facility to the respondent-accused under the Bajpayee Backable Scheme for engineering works.
- The respondent issued a cheque on 29.05.2017 for Rs.3,23,063, but it was dishonoured on 31.05.2017 with the endorsement ‘Account Closed’.
- A private complaint was filed after due procedure under the N.I.Act, summoning the respondent-accused.
- The case proceedings were adjourned multiple times due to the absence of the complainant and their advocate.
- The complaint was eventually dismissed on 12.04.2023 by the trial court citing non-prosecution.
- A non-bailable warrant was issued on 31.07.2019 as the accused left the court without informing.
Arguments
- Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt argued that dismissing the complaint deprived the complainant, a Public Exchequer, of the rights to recover the loan amount.
- Mr. Bhatt mentioned that since public money was involved, the trial court should not have used its power under section 256 of the Cr.P.C. and should have allowed another opportunity to present evidence.
- It was contended by Mr. Bhatt that the proceedings under section 138 of the N.I.Act are time-barred litigation, and the dismissal of the complaint left the complainant with no remedy.
- Mr. Bhatt requested to quash the judgement and order of acquittal and sought permission to appeal and have the appeal admitted.
- The court reviewed the arguments and the record before making a decision.
Analysis
- The complaint is filed by a public servant, but the complainant is not interested in the proceedings pending before the trial court.
- The trial court has been dealing with the case for six years, with the complainant’s advocate being present only on a few occasions.
- Courts should not grant adjournments in a routine and mechanical manner to prevent delays in justice delivery.
- Delay and dilatory tactics are leading to mounting arrears in court cases.
- Judicial officers need to prioritize providing timely justice to litigants over concerns of displeasure from the legal fraternity for being strict on adjournments.
- Efforts must be made by the courts to ensure a speedy trial and access to justice for litigants.
- The delay in justice delivery system could erode the trust and confidence of litigants in the legal system.
- Adjournments should not be used as a tactic to delay justice.
- Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the Magistrate to proceed with the case even if the complainant does not appear for any reason.
- If the complainant does not appear on the day of the hearing, the Magistrate can acquit the accused unless there is a valid reason to adjourn the case.
- The provision of dispensing with the complainant’s attendance also applies in case of the complainant’s death.
- Magistrate may allow representation by a pleader or officer conducting the prosecution if personal attendance of the complainant is deemed unnecessary.
- Delay in justice delivery system is detrimental to fair trial and social justice.
- Speedy justice is essential to punish the guilty and protect the innocent from prolonged criminal proceedings.
- High Court erred in interfering with the discretion of the Magistrate under S. 256(1) in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs Gopal & Ors.
- Significance of the conduct of the complainant in S. 256(1) acquittal cases.
- Interference by the High Court under S. 378(1) in appeal against the acquittal of the accused by the Magistrate’s discretion under S. 256(1) needs justification.
- The trial was adjourned 8 times for the cross-examination of the complainant which required the complainant’s personal attendance.
- The court condemns the use of dilatory tactics, even if the complainant is a public servant.
- The judgment and order of acquittal are upheld, and the application for seeking leave to prefer an appeal is rejected.
Decision
- Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.12410 of 2023 led to the dismissal of the present appeal.
- The present appeal in R/Criminal Appeal No. 1699 of 2023 was dismissed in line with the aforementioned order.
- The application in question is also dismissed by virtue of this order.
Case Title: BARODA GUJARAT GRAMIN BANK MANJALPUR BRANCH THRO KETANKUMAR PUNAMCHAND PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/12410/2023
