DATTATRAYA R PATIL Vs. ARUN RANGRAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 2nd February 2009, after hearing the learned advocate for first and second respondents, leave was granted and appeal was fixed for hearing on admission board. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for hearing. Heard the advocate for the applicant. None appears for the first and second respondents though they are represented by an advocate. It must be stated here that when the delay was condoned and leave was granted on 2nd February 2009 the advocate appearing for the first and second respondents disclosed that his clients were not coming forward to give instructions for filing the reply.

(2.) A complaint filed by the applicant alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the first and second respondents has been dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 21st February 2005 in exercise of powers under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code").

(3.) FROM the Roznama it is clear that on many occasions the applicant was absent. However, the complaint was not required to be adjourned on account of the said default. The complaint appears to have been adjourned from time to time either on the ground that the learned Magistrate was unavailable or that he was busy in another case. The case was never fixed for recording of evidence. From the year 2001, the case was adjourned from time to time for recording of the plea. For one or the other reason, the case was adjourned. Even the accused were absent on some dates.