Today, in the matter of BLS Infrastructure Limited vs Rajwant Singh, the Supreme Court of India has held that when the Court had already examined the complainant, it was inappropriate to pass an order of acquittal.

In the said matter, the Complainant filed eight complaints against the accused under Section 138 of INA. The Court recorded the statements of the complainant and evidence was closed with a direction to list the matter for recording of defence evidence as also for consideration of an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, Magistrate later dismissed the criminal complaints for the non-appearance of the complainant. The Delhi High Court upheld this order of the Magistrate.

It was submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the statement of the complainant was recorded and his cross-examination was also done by the Court,  there existed admissible evidence on record in support of the complaint case. In these circumstances, even if the complainant was absent, the Magistrate could have proceeded to decide the case on merits, it was contended.

By giving reference to the case of  Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Keshvanand (1998) 1 SCC 687, the bench, in this case, held that where the complainant had already been examined as a witness in the case, it would not be appropriate for the Court to pass an order of acquittal merely on non-appearance of the complainant. Thus, the order of acquittal was set-aside and it was directed that the prosecution would proceed from the stage that it reached before the order of acquittal was passed.

The Court noted that the trial Court and High Court did not take consider that the complainant’s cross-examination had been over in Complaint Cases and no cross-examination was sought in other cases. Supreme Court also mentioned that Both the trial court and High Court failed to consider whether in the facts of the case under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 256, the court could proceed with the matter after dispensing with the attendance of the complainant, the bench observed while allowing the appeal.