JAIN ENAMEL WORKS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), against the judgment and order of dismissal, whereby, the learned 14th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot 'trial Court' in brief) acquitted the accused-private respondent, herein, in Criminal Case No. 6470 of 2016, of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' herein after).

(2.) The appellant preferred restoration application vide Exhibit-151 on 19.07.2016, after once the trial Court dismissed the criminal case on 03.06.2016. The Court on the ground that it does not have powers to restore the complaint, dismissed the said application on 20.07.2016. Resultantly, the present appeal.

(3.) Be that as it may, at the outset, what is vital to be considered is after the matter was remanded to the Court concerned, the plea of the accused was once again recorded and the matter was scheduled for the evidence of the complainant on 26.04.2016. However, neither the complainant nor the learned Advocate representing him, remained present. Then, the matter was posted on 10.02.2016, for recording the evidence of the complainant. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 01.04.2016 and on 25.04.2016 for the very purpose. However, as the respondent-accused did not remain present, the Court posted the matter on 26.04.2016. On 26.04.2016, the Court recorded the plea, where, the respondent accused pleaded not guilty. The matter was, therefore, posted for recording of evidence of the complainant. On the next three dates, i.e. on 27.05.2016, 31.05.2016 and 03.06.2016, neither the complainant nor the learned Advocate appearing on his behalf remained present. Therefore, the request of the respondent-accused was acceded to by the trial Court by dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution.