Chapter XX
Section 256 CrPC: Non-appearance or death of complainant
New Law Update (2024)
Section 297 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Magistrate Court
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) If the summons has been issued on complaint and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day: Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.
(2) The provisions of Sub-Section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the complainant is due to his death.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 256(1)
This crucial sub-section outlines the default consequence of a complainant failing to appear in a summons case, which is the acquittal of the accused, unless the Magistrate deems it proper to adjourn the hearing. It also grants the Magistrate the power to excuse the complainant’s personal attendance if they are represented or if their presence is not essential.
Section 256(2)
This sub-section extends the principle established in Sub-Section (1) to cover situations where the complainant’s absence is caused by their demise, ensuring that similar procedural considerations regarding non-appearance leading to acquittal apply in such unfortunate circumstances.
Landmark Judgements
S. Anand v. K.P. Govindaswamy (2023):
The Supreme Court clarified the mandatory nature of acquittal under Section 256 CrPC if the complainant fails to appear, unless the Magistrate records a valid reason for adjournment. It underscored that the discretion to dispense with the complainant’s attendance must be exercised judiciously, not automatically upon representation by a pleader.
K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (2013):
This Supreme Court ruling elucidated the Magistrate’s discretion under the proviso to Section 256, allowing dispensation of the complainant’s attendance. It emphasized that such discretion must be exercised after careful consideration, aiming for speedy justice and preventing undue harassment to the accused due to the complainant’s absence.