MY PRECEPTIONS :
1. Complaint under the N.I.Act, is a private complaint. The trial court cannot lead the complaint on suo-motto basis.
2. If the complainant is absent in the court (whether deliberately or otherwise or whatever-so-wise) FOR SEVERAL CONSECUTIVE DATES, then there is nobody to lead the prosecution (trial, evidence, cross & arguments, etc...).
3. If the complaintant is absent to lead the prosecution, then the court has no option but to "DISMISS" the complaint, de facto. The MM on it own, cannot proceed against the accused, nor lead the prosecution, since the concept of "criminal & vicarious liability" can be fastened only & only by prosecution evidences & documents, which will be absent, when the complainant himself remains absent. AND further more, under the law, there is no such thing as "deemed criminal & vicarious liability" against the accused.
4. Accused can be termed as "Acquitted" or "Convicted", ONLY & ONLY if proved DURING THE TRIAL .... AND NOT OTHER WISE. There is no such thing as AUTOMATIC Acquital or Conviction, under our Laws. Our Law says "presumed innocent untill proved guilty".
NOTE : AND IT DOES NOT SAY "PRESUMED ACQUITTED / CONVICTED UNTO TRIAL".
5. If the trial has not commenced, then the MM has no jurisdiction to order to "Acquit or Convict" any accused. The maximum jurisdiction the MM has. is to dismiss the case.
6. Dimissal of the case is not equal to Acquital or Conviction. It will only mean simply as "Case Dismissed", for reasons such as abuse of process of law or otherwise.
The case can be dismissed for a spectrum of reasons (lack of proper notice, illegal debt, law of limitation, forged documents, etc..... ) BUT all this does not mean "Acquital or Conviction" of the accused.
7. IF "dismissal of case" is automatically & magically equivalent to "acquital", then in the same vein it can also be hallucinated & construed as "conviction" in a case dismissal. AND WHY NOT ?
8. IF the complaint consistently remains absent in the trial court, there is no measure to understand the reasons for his absence for prosecution purposes. On the contrary, the complaintant will be termed as having abused the judicial process.
Going by this logic, the complainant forfeits his constitutional rights to approach ANY higher court, under ANY section & Act, for ANY relief whatsoever. No Writ can be maintainable.
9. Constitutional relief in higher courts can be maintainable only if there is a question or lacuna of process of law leading to Acquital or Conviction
QUESTION : JUST in case If the complainant was absent in court THEN WHERE .... Where .... where was the complainant's counsel (Advocate) when the case was put up before the MM. DID he swallow up the complainant's fees OR did he construe it as a donation from the complainant OR what ?
ANSWER = IGNORANCE
IF, forum members wish to counter-discuss the above, please do so with proper reasonings and justifications.
Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal