INDOCON MICRO ENGINEERS Vs. PINE TECHNOLOGY P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 27/3/2001 by which he has dismissed the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner for prosecution of the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in default of the appearance of the complainant.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that the criminal complaint was fixed before the Court on 9/9/ 2000 for recording of the presummoning evidence when it was adjourned to 27/3/2001 but the Counsel has wrongly noted the date as 27/3/2002. Conse-quently, the complainant and the Counsel could not appear and the complaint was dismissed in default. Petition is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Vinod Kumar Mittal, an employee of the complainant. The respondent has not been served as yet. Notice of the petition need not be issued to them.

(3.) The criminal complaint was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge in exercise of the power vested by Section 256 of Cr.P.C. which has given two options to the Court in the event the complainant failed to appear at the hearing; either to dismiss the complaint or to adjourn the case, if he finds some reason. Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. is extracted below. Non-appearance or death of complainant