Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court

In the landmark judgment of Ranjit Sarkar vs. Ravi Ganesh Bharadwaj & Others decided on 17^th March 2025, the Supreme Court has authoritatively ruled that a mechanical application of Section 256 CrPC cannot be permitted. The provision does not require mandatory acquittal merely because the complainant is absent. The Court emphasized that judicial satisfaction is essential and that pandemic-related restrictions cannot be ignored while exercising powers under Section 256.   The Supreme Court’s Clarification on Section 256 CrPC  

The Court observed:

• “Had COVID restrictions not been in place and in otherwise normal circumstances, if the appellant remained absent on the date appointed for appearance of the respondents, without showing sufficient cause, the Judicial Magistrate in terms of Section 256, CrPC would have been justified in recording an order of acquittal of the respondents had they been present unless, for some reason, he intended to adjourn the hearing to some other day.”  

However, in this case, the Court highlighted that the date in question was not even fixed for the appearance of the accused:

• “The jurisdictional facts for recording an acquittal under Section 256, CrPC were not satisfied in the present case, firstly, because it was not the appointed day for appearance of the respondents and secondly, they were also not present.”   

Thus, the foundation of the acquittal order was legally unsound. The Supreme Court further clarified:

• “Dismissal of the complaint case for default under Section 256, CrPC could have been done only after the Magistrate was satisfied that the complainant’s absence was willful and without sufficient cause.”

Pandemic Restrictions Could Not Be Ignored The Court specifically noted the effect of COVID restrictions on the complainant’s absence:

• “The learned Magistrate overlooked that the complainant was a septuagenarian suffering from COVID-19 and that the prevailing High Court SoPs restricted physical appearance. The Magistrate could not have dismissed the complaint without recording satisfaction that the complainant was avoiding proceedings deliberately.”

This reinforces that courts must adjust procedural rigour in light of extraordinary circumstances such as a pandemic.

The Supreme Court found fault with the High Court’s interference with the Sessions Court’s revisional jurisdiction. The Bench remarked:

• “The revisional power of the Sessions Court was exercised correctly and was not an appeal against the High Court’s earlier decision but a valid exercise of power against the Magistrate’s order.”

The Court categorically ruled:

• “It was wholly incorrect to hold that every time a complainant is absent, the accused is automatically entitled to acquittal under Section 256 CrPC.”

The Court stressed that:

• “The power to acquit is discretionary and not automatic. Judicial officers must apply their mind to the cause of absence and the factual context.”

Restoring the complaint, the Supreme Court declared:

• “The orders dated 16^th April 2021 and 9^th September 2021 are set aside. The complaint is restored and CRR No. 2327 of 2018 is revived for a fresh decision by the High Court.”

The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice and ordered the pending revision to be decided expeditiously.

 This judgment ensures that Section 256 CrPC is not treated as a procedural shortcut to acquittal. The Supreme Court has emphasized that courts cannot ignore practical realities like the COVID-19 crisis while deciding procedural defaults. It strengthens the requirement for judicial satisfaction before acquitting an accused for non-appearance of a complainant.

Date of decision: 17/03/2025