“The conduct of the complainant for the said purpose is of immense significance. He cannot allow a case to remain pending for an indefinite period,” a bench of Justices S B Sinha and L S Panta observed, while allowing the appeal of an accused in a cheque bounce case.

The appellant accused S Ramakrishna had challenged a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which had quashed the acquittal order passed by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate in favour of him.

Complainant S Rami Reddy had filed a private complaint against Ramakrishna on June 6, 2001 for issuing him cheques to the tune of Rs five lakh which had bounced at the bank. During the pendency of the case, Rami Reddy died on October 10, 2003 and his legal heir substituted for him in the proceedings.

But between April 18, 2005 and January 21, 2006 when the case came up for hearing on 14 occasions, none from the complainant’s side appeared in the court.

Exercising his powers under Section 256 CrPC, the magistrate acquitted Ramakrishna of the charge, following which the complainants filed an appeal in the High Court challenging the acquittal.

The High Court in its January 23, 2006 order, quashed the acquittal order on the ground that the magistrate shall decide the case on the merits and should not have acquitted the accused on technicalities.