R MUTHUSAMY Vs. J MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. This appeals has been preferred against the judgment in C. C. No. 7/1999 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri. The complainant in C. C. No. 7/1999 is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant would contend that he has preferred a private complaint against the accused for the offence under Section 279, 377, 338 and 211 of IPC. The private complaint was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate and since the appellant/complainant could not be present on the date of hearing viz. 30. 11. 1999, the complaint was dismissed under Section 256 of Cr. P. C.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant would contend that on 19. 8. 1999 the complainant was present in the Court and the accused were also present and for furnishing copies under Section 207 of Cr. P. C the case was adjourned to 24. 9. 1999 and that on 24. 9. 1999 also he was present. But on 28. 10. 1999 while he was standing out side the Court the case was called and adjourned to 16. 11. 1999 for furnishing copies to the accused. The complainant would say in the grounds of appeal that the hearing date was mistakenly noted by the appellant as 26. 11. 1999 instead of 16. 11. 1999 that is why he could not be present for the hearing on 16. 11. 1999 and that no notice was served on him for the hearing on 30. 11. 1999. The learned Judicial Magistrate has examined the process server of the Court as C. W. 1 and dismissed the complaint.