SHALIMAR PAINTS LTD Vs. MURLIDHARAN HARDWARE MART

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the complainant before the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, george town, Chennai in C. C. No. 7530 of 1998. He had lodged a private Complaint on the strength of a dishonoured cheque against the respondent under Section 138 of negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the Complaint, acquitting the accused under Section 256 (1), Cr. P. C. for the non-appearance of the complainant, it is also stated in the order that on the previous hearings also, the complainant had not appeared before the Court and since the matter had been pending from 1998, the same has been dismissed. Hence, the appellant is before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that merely because of the non-appearance of the complainant before the Court concerned at the time of hearing, the Presiding Officer/magistrate could not pass an order acquitting the accused after dismissal of Complaint. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Magistrate should have adopted a proper procedure in this matter and the non-observance of such procedure would tantamount to not rendering proper justice to the parties.