PRADEEP CHANDRAKANT RAUT Vs. UMESH VASANTRAO GAIKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for respondent No.1-original accused, though served.

(2.) THE applicant had filed a complaint on 8.10.2005 against respondent no.1 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. THE said case is S.C. 408/2005 and it was pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Dapoli. In the said case, process was issued against the respondent -accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. THEreafter, the matter went on.

(3.) ON 28th September 2007, the matter was kept back for depositing cost. ON that day, the learned Advocate for the applicant stated that she could not contact the complainant on telephone or by any other means and she herself, was not in a position to deposit the cost or even file an application seeking time to deposit the cost. The learned Magistrate observed that for want of depositing cost and for non-compliance of the earlier order, the complaint needs to be dismissed. And in such circumstances, the complaint came to be dismissed.