Section 256 CrPC | If Date Isn't Appointed For Appearance Of Accused But For Some Other Purpose, Acquittal Of Accused Doesn't Necessarily Follow: Supreme Court

In this criminal appeal, the Apex Court was tasked with the interpretation of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan said, “What, therefore, assumes importance for invoking Section 256, Cr. PC is the purpose for which the case is fixed. If the date is not appointed for appearance of the accused but for some other purpose, like in the present case, acquittal of the accused does not necessarily follow as the logical result of absence of the complainant. Also, the words “on any day subsequent thereto” must be understood in reference to the words preceding, namely, “the day appointed for the appearance of the accused”.

Factual Background

The appellant’s son, holder of a degree in Doctor of Philosophy, died at the age of 36 years due to a traumatic fall from a staircase. The appellant had his son immediately admitted to a private hospital in Kolkata, and according to him, it was due to the criminal medical negligence of the hospital that he could not survive the hemorrhage caused by such a fall. The appellant lodged a complaint under Section 200, CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate alleging offence committed under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Judicial Magistrate issued a process under Section 204(1) against the respondents for the alleged commission of an offence under Section 304A of IPC. In the intergennum, national lockdown was clamped owing to the outbreak of COVID and the appellant, being a septuagenarian, went under medical treatment. The Judicial Magistrate called the complaint case on January 6, 2021, but dismissed the complaint for default vide an order dated April 16, 2021, as the appellant failed to appear.

The Appellant moved the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barrackpore, in revision questioning the aforesaid orders and the said case was restored. The revisional order was next challenged by the respondents in a fresh application under Section 482, CrPC in CRR No. 2327 of 2018. By an order dated July 15, 2024, another Judge of the High Court allowed the same and the complaint stood closed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

The petitioner appeared in person while Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, said, “There can be and, in fact, exists no doubt that the High Court in passing the impugned order dated 15th July, 2024 has occasioned a grave failure of justice…The impugned order of the learned Judge reveals a narrow focus stemming from a one-track mind. Why the appellant could not appear before the Judicial Magistrate on 6th January, 2021 and 16th April, 2021 and whether the Judicial Magistrate could have called the complaint case for ascertaining whether cause was shown, had not been considered at all.”

As per the Bench, COVID restrictions being in place and in terms of the SoP framed by the High Court, the Judicial Magistrate could not have dismissed the complaint for default on April 16, 2021 without recording a satisfaction that either the appellant was deliberately avoiding participation in the proceedings or that his recalcitrance was such, which left the Judicial Magistrate with no other option but to dismiss the complaint for default. Secondly, the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate having been stayed by the High Court by interim orders passed from time to time, the Judicial Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to pass any order on the complaint case till such time the stay was lifted.

It was further observed that the Judge proceeded on a total misconception of the factual position. The Judge was anchored in the belief that it was the appellant who had approached the High Court by filing the Revision whereas the CRR No. 2327 of 2018 was at the instance of the respondents.

Referring to the provisions of the CrPC, the Bench explained that an acquittal can be recorded by a magistrate under Section 255, CrPC, if considering the evidence, it is found that the accused is not guilty. An acquittal can also be recorded by the magistrate under Section 256, CrPC, without considering the evidence on record, in the stated situations.

The Bench threw more light on Section 256 and explained, “Say, for instance, if a date is fixed by the magistrate for bringing an order from a superior court or for showing cause why an order of dismissal should not be passed for continuous absence of the complainant or for producing any material, which is not intrinsically connected with any step towards progress of the lis, and the complainant is found to be absent, a dismissal of the complaint can be ordered but the provision for acquitting the accused may not be attracted unless it happens to be the date appointed for appearance of the accused and they do appear personally or through an advocate; also, without the magistrate recording a clear acquittal along with the order of dismissal of the complaint, acquittal need not be read into every such order of dismissal of a complaint owing to absence of the complainant.”

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that April 16, 2021, was not the day appointed for the appearance of the respondents. It was the date on which the appellant was required to show cause. “Had COVID restrictions not been in place and in otherwise normal circumstances, if the appellant remained absent on the date appointed for appearance of the respondents, without showing sufficient cause, the Judicial Magistrate in terms of Section 256, Cr. PC would have been justified in recording an order of acquittal of the respondents had they been present unless, for some reason, he intended to adjourn the hearing to some other day. However, the jurisdictional facts for recording an acquittal under Section 256, Cr. PC were not satisfied in the present case, firstly, because it was not the appointed day for appearance of the respondents and secondly, they were also not present”, it said.

The Apex Court further held that it was absolutely incorrect on the part of the Judge to hold that the Sessions Judge was sitting in appeal over the order of the High Court. The Sessions Judge had duly held the revision petition to be maintainable and had assigned sufficient reason why the complaint should not have been dismissed based on a correct interpretation of Section 256, Cr. PC.

“Even otherwise, both the learned Judges ought to have realized that the appellant did have multiple remedies available in law to pursue for laying a challenge to the order dated 16th April, 2021 and which, in fact, he did pursue as the correct course of action; and, indeed, succeeded in restoration of his complaint”, the Bench held while setting aside the order dated July 15, 2024 and reviving the appellant’s complaint case.

Cause Title: Anjit Sarkar v. Ravi Ganesh Bhardwaj and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 415)

Appearance:

Appellant: Ranjit Sarkar, Petitioner-in-person

Respondent: Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee, AOR Partha Sil, Advocates Oindrilla Sen, Sayani Bhattacharya, Samarth Mohanty, Srijit Datta

Click here to read/download Judgment