NITIN SHASHIKANT RATHOD Vs. ISHA SUPPLIERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Dhruv K.Dave, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the present appeal has been filed under sec. 378 of the Cr.P.C., against the order dtd. 15/9/2021 in Criminal Case Nos.5312 of 2013, which came to be dismissed for default under sec. 256 of Cr.P.C. by the 25th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, which laid to acquittal of the accused.

(2.) Mr. Dave submits that the matter was eight years old, which is also reflected in the order. He states that as per the order only on earlier date and the day on which the order was passed, the complainant and the Advocate could not appear or pray for any adjournment and therefore the learned trial Court Judge came to conclusion that the complainant is not interested in proceeding with the matter; hence, it was dismissed. Mr. Dave states that the order itself is bad in law since under sec. 256 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Court Judge ought not to have exercised the power, as the complainant was represented by an Advocate on record.

(3.) In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshvanand, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 687, the Hon'ble Apex Court while referring to the provisions of sec. 256 of Cr.P.C. in context of the complaint filed under sec. 138 of the N.I. Act, has made observations as under: