KUPPAIYANDU MUTHU RAJAN Vs. DHANRAJ H RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for leave to file appeal against order of ac quittal passed under section 256 of Cri.P.C, whereby the complaint filed by present ap plicant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was dismissed for absence of the complainant.

(2.) Present applicant has filed S.T.C.C. No. 3563 of 2006 for committing offence punish able under section 138 of the Negotiable In struments Act against the respondent. The complaint was for hearing on 27.8.2007, on which day application Exh. 19 was given by the complainant for adjournment. However, the same came to be dismissed. After hear ing advocates for both sides, it is observed that the complainant was absent on that day, whereas accused was present as usual. On perusal of record, it was found that the plea of the accused was recorded on 19.10.2006 and the matter was posted for hearing. Though the accused was present on each and every date personally, same was not posi tion with the complainant. The complainant filed application for exemption on various dates and his attendance was exempted as last chance on 16.6.2007. That was applica tion Exh. 18. Even long adjournment of 2-3 months was granted to make the complain ant available and inspite of that he re mained absent and therefore application Exh. 19 was rejected as thereby further adjournment of two months was sought. Consequently, after rejection of application Exh. 19, the Court proceeded to dismiss the complaint and acquitted the accused under section 256 of the Cri.P.C.

(3.) The learned Advocate Shri. Sachin Deshmukh argued vehemently and said that the Court ought to have given last chance. He also said that the copy of the order passed on Exh. 19 shows that already time was granted but one more chance could have been given.