JINDAL PIPS LTD Vs. BOARD SELL STATEC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals against acquittal are preferred by the complainant in C C. Nos. 5370 and 5371 of 1998 on the file of the learned vii-Metropolitan Magistrate, George town, Chennai-1 challenging the orders dated 17/1/2001 dismissing the complaints filed by them on the ground of non-appearance in the cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) A perusal of the records shows that though notice has already been ordered to the fourth respondent, service is awaited. No useful purpose will be served in keeping the appeals pending the appeals relate to the year 2001 hence, Mr N Daraisamy, learned counsel is appointed by this Court as the legal aid counsel for the fourth respondent

(3.) A perusal of the records further discloses that the learned Magistrate called the above said C Cs filed by the appellant/complainant on 17-1-2001 and dismissed the complaints on the ground of non-appearance of the complainants in these cases, the learned Magistrate passed a mechanical order simply on the ground that the complainant was not present and ultimately acquitted the accused It is not stated by the learned magistrate in the said order that the accused was present on that day The order of the learned Magistrate, on the face of it, is arbitrary and illegal