BALIRAM RAMCHANDRA PATIL Vs. ASHOK PUNDALIK PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, the appellant-complainant has challenged the impugned order dated 15.12.2015 passed in Sum. Criminal Case No. 358/2014 by J.M.F.C Amalner Dist. Jalgaon, whereby the learned judge has dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent/accused in default of taking steps to serve the accused by exercising power under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent though served failed to appear in spite of notice of final disposal sent and served upon him.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order with contention that order is not sustainable in law for the sole reason that powers under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not have been exercised by the learned Magistrate as the summons was not served upon the accused. He submits that appellant has taken all necessary steps to serve the respondent/accused. Notice sent through the process of court as well as by Reg. Post. A.D could not be served as respondent has deliberately avoided to accept the service by assigning the reason that there is discrepancy in his name mentioned in the notice though the notice was earlier served upon him in same name and address.