VINAY KUMAR ASHOKKUMAR MALIWAL Vs. RAMESH KISHANLAL SABOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment both the applications are being disposed of together. The applicant had filed two private complaint cases for offence punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint cases were registered as SCC No.3195/98 and SCC No.3197/98. They were posted for hearing on 24.2.2003. When the Criminal cases were called out, the complainant was found absent and hence, order of dismissal was passed. The learned C.J.M. discharged the accused/respondent for want of prosecution. It appears that in the latter part of the day, advocate for the complainant submitted an application to recall the order of dismissal on the ground that the complainant/applicant had gone out of station for urgent personal work and the application could not be submitted well in time due to rush of work.

(2.) The Respondent objected the application on the ground that absence of the complainant was unjustified. The objection raised further was that the Criminal Court had no power to restore the complaint cases by reviewing its own order of dismissal. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded considered arguments at Bar and the tenor of case law cited by the parties. The applications submitted by the complainant were rejected by order dated 5.2.2003.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision Petitions. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Revision Petitions are not maintainable against the order of dismissal of the complaint U/s 256 of the Cr.P.C. It is for such reason that the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to dismiss the Revision Petitions. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge relied on "Om Gayatri and Co. & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another" (2006 Criminal L.J. 601). That is the main reason as to why both the Revision Petitions were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.