| Case Name : | S Rama Krishna Vs. S. Rami Reddy |
| Equivalent Citation: | AIR 2008 SC 2066 |
| Date Of Judgement : | 29/04/2008 |
| Court : | Supreme Court Of India |
| Case No. : | Appeal {crl.} 755 of 2008 |
| Case Type : | Appeal {criminal} |
| Petitioner : | S Rama Krishna |
| Respondent : | S. Rami Reddy {D} By His Lrs. & Ors |
| Bench : | {2 Justice} Justice S. B. Sinha & Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta |
| Referred : | The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 256 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 |
| Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 142 |
FACT OF THE CASE
∙ Appellant issued two cheques for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 /- in favour of complainant S. Rami Reddy which was dishonored.
∙ A complaint was filed in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class ; Kurnool purported to be under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
∙ The appellant was acquitted by the learned Magistrate & an appeal was filed before the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning the validity of the order.
∙ The learned single judge of the High Court set aside the said judgement of acquittal holding that the appellant in the matter before the court was absent on dates of
proceedings and held the matter to be decided on merits rather than on technicalities and gave the appellants one more opportunity to get the matter prosecuted.
∙ Thus, an appeal was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS
∙ The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the high court had committed a manifest in error passing the impugned judgment failed to take into consideration that since the complainant remained absent for a long time there was no justification for setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned magistrate.
∙ The matter remained pending for more than five years.
∙ It was obligatory on the part of the respondents to press their application for substitution.
∙ They did not file attendance of their witnesses.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
∙ The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned judgement and admittedly, the respondents themselves did not seriously press their applications for their substitution in place of the original complainant.
∙ The respondents were represented by their advocate in all the dates of the proceeding pending before the court.
JUDGEMENT
∙ The Supreme Court interpreted the fundamental rights and the right to bail with the constitutional scheme and
principles of law.
∙ The court held that absence of a party shows their will towards disposing of any case and if any party fails to abide by thus, and that shall not be considered as a burden upon accused and courts can dispose off the case accordingly.
∙ In the aforesaid Ratio decidendi , the court allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner under the bail application.
CONCLUSION
∙ In India there are almost six lakh [6,00,000] cases pending before the High courts in India only, the lower judiciary having even more burden.
∙ The conduct of a party in a civil or criminal case is essential element in deverging the way where and how the suit is to be conducted.
∙ In many pending cases, the parties usually don’t appear before the courts which causes delays to not only the court but to others parties.
∙ The accused and parties apply for a application of absence leave and prevent themselves on appearing before the courts which leads to delay in a conclusive
judgement of any case.
∙ It must be understood that the judiciary which is already lagging with loads of cases pending, cannot overburden a person with imprisonment where the other party in a criminal case shows implied conduct of having no interest in disposing a case.
∙ The right to bail is an essential right with every accused. A person has a right to bail in a bailable offence and in a non- bailable offence, upon the discretion of the competent court where the trial is being conducted. The right to bail is a wide and exhaustive right which derives its power from not only the fundamental rights but also constitutional scheme and other significant elements the case such as facts, conduct and manner of proceeding of a case pending before the court.
∙ It must be interpreted in a wider scope and depending upon the status, conduct, habits, the law under which the person is accused of any offence and the past record of the accused.
∙ The petitioner lost this case, and the Supreme Court granted the bail in this case, the court diversified and extended the ambit of the right to bail and laid emphasis on conduct of parties to be an essential element in any matter before the court.
∙ This case turned out to be a saviour for all the pending cases and a message that absence of a party in a matter shall not be loss suffered by the accused under the Indian Constitutional spirit.
written by Jahanvi Sahu intern under legal vidhiya
0 Comments