(1.) This appeal against the order of acquittal passed under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the complainant in a cheque bouncing case.
(2.) The appellant/complainant instituted the cheque bouncing case as against the respondent in C.C.No.36 of 2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur. The case is of the year 2003. On 22.08.2005, the impugned order has been passed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that NBW is pending without any further progress for a long time. No step has been taken by the complainant. Further, on the hearing date he was called twice. He is not diligent in prosecuting the case and thus acquitted the accused and dismissed the complaint.
(3.) According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the petitioner was diligent in prosecuting the complaint. Further, for two hearings he has missed and for that the complaint has been dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, instead of passing the order of acquittal under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate could have exercised his discretion vide proviso to Section 256(1) Cr.P.C.