A Sessions Court has pulled up a Metropolitan Magistrate for “adopting wrong course of action”. (Representational)A Sessions Court has pulled up a Metropolitan Magistrate for “adopting wrong course of action” in acquitting an accused, charged with molestation and outraging the modesty of a woman, when the complainant did not appear for her cross-examination.
Special Judge Pulastya Pramchala said the Metropolitan Magistrate wrongly applied CrPC section 256, which states that if the summons have been issued and the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall acquit the accused after complying with the conditions.
The case was registered in August 2012 and charges were framed in 2014, following which the complainant’s statement was recorded. However, the cross-examination was deferred on the request of the accused.
“Thereafter, summons were sent to the complainant by trial court for fresh appearance. However, the complainant did not put in her appearance before the court, and the trial court the same day acquitted the accused, relying on Section 256 CrPC,” stated court records.
The State filed an appeal, stating that the judgment was “illegal, perverse” and liable to be set aside. The prosecutor argued that the MM should have taken “coercive action against the complainant”, but that was not done.
The Special Judge said: “In such circumstances, the due course was to take coercive action against the complainant to procure her presence… In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I do find that MM adopted wrong course of action. Accused is directed to appear before trial court, which shall adopt procedure applicable to a case instituted on police report, and shall proceed further to procure appearance of the complainant for cross-examination.”
The Special Judge also said that it has to be kept in mind that it is “also the duty of the court” to take sufficient steps to ensure the appearance of a witness.
