STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. PRAKASH RUKMAN PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate for the applicant. Respondent is absent. Leave granted.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the applicant-State Bank of India, Personnel Banking Branch, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur that the applicant (original complainant: through Counsel) were present in the trial Court in Summary Criminal Case No.7263/2006 right from the filing of the complaint i.e. 4.4.2006 till 2.5.2008, but on the adjourned date i.e. on 20.8.2008, the following order was passed by learned 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur :

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has a very good case on merits and if leave is not granted serious prejudice would be caused to the applicant, considering that the respondent had failed to appear in the trial Court despite service of summons in respect of accusations punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also contended that despite notice of this proceedings published in daily 'Hitavada' an English newspaper published from Nagpur, the respondent accused remained absent. Reference was made to the ruling in Mohd. Azeem Vs. A Venkatesh & another, 2002 7 SCC 726, in order to contend that for one singular default in appearance on the part of the complainant, it was not proper on the part of the learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate F.C. to dismiss the complaint itself.