What is authentic & legally accepted definition of complainant in criminal cases?
nishant
(Querist) 15 November 2011
This query is : Resolved
Please tell me.......
1) whether provisions of S 256- Non appearance of complainant is applciable against state case of summary nature?
2) Whtehter police officer receiving information from informant lodging complainat by himself can said as complainant?
3) In my summary case my client ie accused is comming for last 5 years. But ploice officer who lodged compliaint & PW after duly receiving summons & bailbale warrant is not comming before court
4) prosecution is not closing its evidence.
The JMFC court is saying that ploice officer can not be said as complainant but he is informant & moreover s 256 is applicable only in private complaint.
5) so main question is S 256 Crpc can be applied in such summary state case
6)What is authentic & legally accepted definition of complainant
7) If applicable is there any citation or ruling on this point or by what means i should give relief to my client
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 15 November 2011
1. No
2. No.
3. ok.
4. The version of JMFC is accurate. Section 256 Cr. PC is meant for summons cases.
5. No.
6. A person who makes a complaint, usually before judicial system.
7. In the Supreme Court judgement in Hussainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar4 where Justice Bhagwati observed:
No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as ‘reasonable, fair or just’ and it would fall foul of Article 21 of the Constitution. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. The question which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long period of time and convicting him after such trial would constitute violation of his fundamental right under Article 21.
Common Cause, a Registered Society, had moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution with respect to cases pending in Criminal Courts all over the country and asked for certain directions. The Court after considering the genuineness of circumstances relevant to the subject, issued, detailed guidelines for the release of under-trials.9
1. (a) In case the accused is facing trial for offences under IPC or any other law punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years, and if trial of such offences is pending for more than one year and if the accused has been in jail for a period of 6 months or more, such accused shall be released on bail or on personal bond.
(b) In case the accused is charged with offences under IPC or any other law punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 5 years and if the trial for such offences is pending for two years or more and if the accused has remained in jail for more than 6 months, such accused shall be released on bail or on personal bond.
(c) In case the offences under IPC or any other law for which the accused have been charged are punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less and if the trial for such offences is pending for two years or more and if the accused has remained in jail for a period of one year or more, such accused shall be released on bail or personal bond.
2. (a) In traffic offences pending for more than two years due to non-service of summons, the accused may be discharged.
(b) In any compoundable IPC offences pending trial for more than two years, if the trial has not commenced, the Court shall discharge or acquit the accused and close the case.
(c) In case trial is pending in a non-cognisable and bailable offence for over two years, the Court shall discharge or acquit the accused and close the case.
(d) If offence is punishable with fine only and the trial has been pending over one year, the Court shall discharge or acquit the accused.
(e) If the offence is punishable with imprisonment of upto one year and the trial therein has been pending for more than one year, the Court shall discharge or acquit the accused.
(f) If the offence is punishable with imprisonment upto three years and if trial therein has been pending for over two years without any progress, the Court shall discharge or acquit the accused.
These directions, however, are not applicable to certain categories of offences:
(a) corruption, misappropriation of public funds, cheating, whether under the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 or any other statute, (b) smuggling, foreign exchange violation and offences under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (c) Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Food Adulteration Act, Acts dealing with environment or any other economic offences, (d) offences under the Arms Act, 1959, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987, (e) offences relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force, (f) offences against public tranquillity, (g) offences relating to public servants, (h) offences relating to coins and government stamp, (i) offences relating to elections, (j) offences relating to giving false evidence and offences against public justice, (k) any other type of offences against the State, (l) offences under the taxing enactments and (m) offences of defamation as defined in Section 499 IPC.
Rajeev Kumar
(Expert) 15 November 2011
Mr.Makkad has given enormous time and replied well. No cause to differ
V.V.RAMDAS
(Expert) 15 November 2011
Dear Nishant ,
Please go through 1980,Cri.L.J 1405(1407)
Comlaint case means filed before the Magistrate court directly. case filed before the police is not complaint case. Section 256 Cr.P.C is not applicabe to your case.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 17 November 2011
Agreed with Mr, Makkad.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 20 November 2011
Common Cause Judgement is overruled long back. It is no longer valid law.
