S. Rama Krishna Vs. S. Rami Reddy AIR 2008 SC 2066

FACTS OF THE CASE

Appellant issued two cheques for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) in favor complainant S. Rami Reddy which were 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 and 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 judgment 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

CONTENTONS OF THE PETITIONERS

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the High Court had committed a manifest error in 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.

CONTENTONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned judgment 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.

RATIO DECINDI

The conduct of the complainant is of immense significance and he cannot allow a case to remain pending for an indefinite period. He attended the court on not less than 20 occasions after the death of the original complainant. Appellant had been attending the court for a long time, except on some dates where when remained absent or was otherwise represented by his Advocate, and in the aforementioned situation, the learned Magistrate exercised his discretionary jurisdiction and was considered fit.

The High Court failed to take into consideration the fact that it was dealing with an order of acquittal and, thus, the principle of law which was required to be applied was that, if two views are possible, a judgment of acquittal should not ordinarily be interfered with.

There exists a distinction between a civil case and a criminal case. Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused. The orders passed by the competent court of law as also the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure must be construed having regard to the Constitutional scheme and the legal principles in mind.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid emphasis on the conduct of the respondent in the trial court to consider the will of respondents for the disposal of case. The court differentiated between the proceedings to be done in a civil and criminal case. The court held there is a difference between civil and criminal case, and the high courts should interpret the procedural laws with constitutional scheme and legal principles for fundamental rights of the accused.

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court interpreted the fundamental rights and the right to bail within the constitutional scheme and principles of law. The court held that absence of a party shows their will towards dispose of any case and if any party fails to abide by this, and that shall not be considered as a burden upon accused and courts can dispose off the case accordingly. In the aforesaid ratio- decindi, the court allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner under the bail application.  

CONCLUSION

In India there are almost six lakh (6,00,000) casespending before the High courts in India only, the lower judiciary having even more burden. The conduct of a party in any civil or criminal case is a essential element in diverging 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 other 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 judgment of any case. It must be understood that 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 a 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 it 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 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 a essential element in any matter before the court. This case turned out to be a savior for all the pending cases and a message that absence of a party in a matter shall not of be loss suffered by the accused under the Indian Constitutional spirit.

written by Devranjan Singh Shekhawat Seedling School of Law and Governance, Jaipur National University 

Admin