Introduction
Section 279 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with the situation where the complainant does not appear before the Magistrate on the day fixed for hearing in a complaint case.
The section provides a specific procedure depending upon the circumstances. The Magistrate may acquit the accused if the complainant fails to appear, but this rule is subject to important exceptions, particularly where the complainant is represented by an advocate or where the Magistrate considers that the complainant’s personal attendance is unnecessary.
The section also deals with cases where the complainant dies.
Object and Purpose
Section 279 seeks to prevent criminal proceedings instituted through a complaint from continuing indefinitely when the complainant fails to participate in the proceedings.
At the same time, the provision gives the Magistrate discretion to continue the case where the complainant’s personal attendance is not necessary.
Thus, the section balances:
- the accused’s right to have proceedings concluded without unnecessary delay; and
- the complainant’s interest in having the case heard despite personal absence in appropriate circumstances.
Essential Elements
1. Applies to Complaint Cases
Section 279 applies where the case has been instituted upon a complaint.
It is therefore concerned with the role and appearance of the complainant during the proceedings.
2. The Day Fixed for Hearing
The provision operates when the day appointed for the hearing of the case arrives.
The Magistrate examines whether the complainant is present.
3. Complainant Does Not Appear
If the complainant does not appear on the appointed day, the Magistrate must consider the circumstances and determine the appropriate course under the section.
The absence of the complainant does not invariably result in acquittal.
When the Complainant Does Not Appear
Where the complainant fails to appear, the Magistrate may, after giving the accused a hearing, acquit the accused, unless the Magistrate considers that for some reason it is proper to adjourn the hearing to another day.
Therefore, two possibilities arise:
- the Magistrate may acquit the accused; or
- the Magistrate may adjourn the case if there is sufficient reason to do so.
Representation by an Advocate
The proviso to Section 279 provides an important exception.
Where the complainant is represented by an advocate, or where the Magistrate considers that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with the complainant’s attendance and proceed with the case.
Therefore, absence of the complainant personally does not necessarily terminate the proceedings.
Discretion of the Magistrate
Section 279 gives the Magistrate discretion in dealing with the complainant’s absence.
The Magistrate may consider:
- whether the complainant has a valid reason for absence;
- whether an advocate is representing the complainant;
- whether the complainant’s personal presence is necessary;
- whether the case should be adjourned; and
- whether the interests of justice require continuation of the proceedings.
The provision therefore does not operate as an automatic dismissal mechanism.
Death of the Complainant
Section 279 also addresses the situation where the complainant dies.
The death of the complainant does not automatically bring the criminal proceedings to an end.
The Magistrate may proceed with the case in accordance with law, depending upon the circumstances of the case.
The underlying principle is that criminal proceedings are not necessarily dependent upon the continued physical existence of the complainant once the Court has taken cognizance and the matter is properly before it.
Procedure
The procedure under Section 279 can be understood as follows:
- A complaint case is pending before the Magistrate.
- A date is fixed for hearing.
- The complainant fails to appear.
- The Magistrate considers whether the complainant’s absence should result in acquittal or whether the matter should be adjourned.
- The accused is given an opportunity to be heard before an order of acquittal is made.
- If an advocate represents the complainant, or the Magistrate considers personal attendance unnecessary, the Magistrate may dispense with the complainant’s presence.
- Where the complainant has died, the Magistrate may proceed in accordance with the circumstances and applicable law.
Important Distinctions
Absence and Death Are Not the Same
The section deals with both non-appearance and death of the complainant, but the legal consequences are different.
Failure to appear may result in acquittal, subject to the Magistrate’s discretion and the exceptions provided by the section.
Death of the complainant does not automatically terminate the proceedings.
Absence of Complainant and Acquittal
The complainant’s absence does not automatically mean that the accused must be acquitted.
The Magistrate may adjourn the matter or dispense with personal attendance where appropriate.
Personal Appearance and Representation
A complainant need not necessarily be physically present at every hearing.
Where the complainant is represented by an advocate, or the Magistrate considers personal attendance unnecessary, the proceedings may continue.
BNSS and CrPC
Section 279 BNSS corresponds to Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The basic principle has been retained: where the complainant does not appear on the day fixed for hearing, the Magistrate may acquit the accused, subject to the power to adjourn the case and the exception where the complainant is represented by a pleader or personal attendance is unnecessary.
The provision therefore continues the established procedural mechanism for dealing with non-appearance of the complainant in complaint cases.
Common Confusions
Is the accused automatically acquitted if the complainant is absent?
No.
The Magistrate has discretion to adjourn the case instead of acquitting the accused.
Can the case continue if the complainant is personally absent?
Yes.
If the complainant is represented by an advocate or the Magistrate considers personal attendance unnecessary, the case may proceed.
Does the death of the complainant automatically end the case?
No.
The death of the complainant does not by itself automatically terminate the proceedings.
Must the accused be heard before acquittal for non-appearance?
Yes.
The statutory procedure requires the Magistrate to give the accused an opportunity of being heard before passing an order of acquittal on account of the complainant’s non-appearance.
Topic at a Glance
- Topic: Non-appearance or death of complainant
- BNSS Section: Section 279
- Chapter: XXI
- Applies to: Complaint cases
- Main issue: Complainant’s absence on the hearing date
- Possible consequence: Acquittal of accused
- Alternative: Adjournment of hearing
- Representation: Advocate may represent complainant
- Personal attendance: May be dispensed with where unnecessary
- Death of complainant: Does not automatically terminate proceedings
- CrPC counterpart: Section 256
Quick Revision
- Section 279 BNSS deals with non-appearance or death of the complainant.
- It applies to cases instituted upon a complaint.
- If the complainant does not appear on the appointed hearing date, the Magistrate may acquit the accused after hearing the accused.
- The Magistrate may instead adjourn the case where appropriate.
- If the complainant is represented by an advocate, the case may proceed despite personal absence.
- The Magistrate may also dispense with personal attendance if it is not necessary.
- The death of the complainant does not automatically terminate the proceedings.
- Section 279 corresponds to Section 256 CrPC.
ALSO READ: Section 278 – Acquittal or conviction
Conclusion
Section 279 BNSS provides a practical mechanism for dealing with the absence or death of a complainant in a complaint case. While the Magistrate may acquit the accused when the complainant fails to appear, the provision preserves judicial discretion to adjourn the matter or proceed without personal attendance where appropriate. It therefore seeks to prevent unnecessary delay while ensuring that a genuine complaint is not terminated merely because the complainant is unable to appear personally.
