SHRI CHAND YADAV Vs. MANOJ KUMAR & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.A.13528/2014

(2.) On perusal of the Trial Court record, it reveals that complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the respondents on 24.06.2010. The respondents put appearance before the Trial Court. By an order dated 03.06.2011, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon them, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to lead defence evidence. They wished to move an application under Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act. By an order dated 21.03.2012, the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant was denied due to respondents' failure to move any application under Section 145(2) Negotiable Instruments Act. Recording of 313 Cr.P.C. statement was dispensed with and the matter was listed for defence evidence for 13.04.2012. On 22.08.2012 case was adjourned for arguments. On 29.09.2012, the complainant was not present. One last and final opportunity was granted to the complainant to put appearance on 15.01.2013. On that day, learned Proxy counsel was present on behalf of the complainant. Since the complainant was not present, the complaint case was dismissed observing that the complainant was not interested to pursue the complaint.

(3.) On scanning the order-sheets referred above, it reveals that presence of the complainant on 15.01.2013 was not necessary for conducting effective proceedings. On 22.08.2012, the case was adjourned for further arguments. The appellant has given cogent reasons for his absence on the date of hearing before the Trial Court. Number of documents have been placed on record showing that the appellant was suffering from various ailments and was unable to put appearance in person. It is informed that the appellant has since expired.