| Case Name | A.S. Gauraya and Ors. v. S.N. Thakur and Ors. |
| Equivalent Citation | AIR 1986 SC 1440 |
| Date of Judgement | 25 April 1986 |
| Court | The Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1979 |
| Case Type | Criminal Appeal |
| Petitioner | A.S. Gauraya and Ors. |
| Respondent | S.N. Thakur and Ors. |
| Bench | (2 Justice)Justice M.M. DuttJustice V. Khalid |
| Referred | Regarding Section 67 ,72c(l)(a) of Mines Act, 1952Regulation 106 of Metalliferous Mines Regulation 1961 |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The first respondent filed a complaint against two appellants in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, New Delhi, for the offence under Section 67 and 72C(l)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952, and read with Regulation 106 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation 1961. The Magistrate took the complaint on file and issued summons to the accused to appear. On the day, neither the complainant nor the accused were present and therefore, the Magistrate passed the order that the complaint is dismissed. On 13.1.1972, the complainant filed an application for restoration of the complaint. On 20.1.1972, the Magistrate passed an order. Order stated that the Magistrate had become functus officio, by his order dated 6.1.1972. This application was rejected by the Magistrate and he was of the view that he had inherent powers under the CrPC to review and re-call his earlier orders. The petitioners filed a revision before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi, which was dismissed followed by another revision before the High Court of Delhi which was also dismissed.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether a magistrate can restore a complaint to his file by revoking his earlier order dismissing it for the non-appearance of the complainant and proceed with it when an application is made by the complainant to revive it?
- Whether the Magistrate could have re-called his order?
CONTENTONS OF THE PETITIONERS
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that Section 249 of the Criminal Procedure Code enables a Magistrate to discharge the accused when the complainant is absent and when the conditions laid down in the said section are satisfied. Section 256(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code enables a Magistrate to acquit the accused if the complainant does not appear. Thus, the order of dismissal of a complaint by a criminal court due to the absence of a complainant is a proper order.
The learned counsel also contended that the trial and all proceedings leading to the conviction and sentence of the petitioners are quite illegal. He narrated three illegalities in this case. First of all he contended that the complaint once has been dismissed by the Magistrate, he has no jurisdiction to recall the same. Secondly, he contended that the list of witnesses was not accompanied by the complaint and, therefore, process could not be issued. Thirdly he complained that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to drop the accused and the order of dropping the accused is unknown to procedure of the Criminal Procedure Code. Relying on these three circumstances, it was contended that the trial of the petitioners is vitiated and the conviction recorded against them is quite illegal.
CONTENTONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent stated that What the Court has to see is not whether the Code of Criminal procedure contains any provision prohibiting a Magistrate from entertaining an application to restore a dismissed complaint, but the task should be to find out whether the said Code contains any provision enabling a Magistrate to exercise an inherent jurisdiction which he otherwise does not have.
RATIO DECINDI
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held a magistrate can restore a complaint to his file by revoking his earlier order dismissing it for the non-appearance of the complainant and proceed with it when an application is made by the complainant to revive it.
JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India adjudicated the court do not think it necessary to probe further into the facts of this case and lengthen this Judgment and dismissed the complaint.
CONCLUSION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court widened the powers of the magistrate and held that magistrate can restore a complaint to his file by revoking his earlier order dismissing it for the non-appearance of the complainant and proceed with it when an application is made by the complainant to revive it. The court by the judgment made emphasis on the fact that presence of party is an essential element in any proceeding.
The court held that absence of a party shows their will towards disposing of any case and if any party fails to abide by this, and that shall not be considered as a burden upon indicted and courts can dispose off the case consequently. In the case, the court dismissed the appeal.
Devranjan Singh Shekhawat, B.B.A LL.B (H) ,VIth Semester ,IIIrd Year, Seedling School of Law and Governance, Jaipur National University
