SHYAM COMMERCIAL CO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the report of the Department dated 7.5.2012, it appears that Mr. Amarta Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant collected paper books on 19.12.2011 and the learned Counsel for the O.P.No.1 collected paper book on 16.12.2011. But the learned Counsel for the opposite party has neither appeared on the previous occasion nor any subsequent date. He is found absent also today on repeated calls.

(2.) THIS appeal is pertaining to the complaint case lodged in the year 2006 under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. It was dismissed under Section 256 of the Cr. P. C.

(3.) THE appellant had made the photo copy of the entire case record as annexures to the memo of appeal. It appears therefrom that the complainant, i.e., the appellant, no doubt, did not act diligently and seriously. In his presence, the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the respondent no.1 (accused) for appointment of hand writing Expert and dismissal of the case under Section 256 of the Cr. P. C. vide order dated 1.7.2009. Thereafter, on the next date, the complainant was examined-in-chief and cross examined in part on 5.11.2009. The complainant thereafter had taken five consecutive adjournments and on 22.2.2011 also prayed for time. The learned Trial Court recorded his dissatisfaction in this matter and declined to allow the prayer for adjournment. Ultimately, the learned Court dismissed the case and acquitted the accused under Section 256 of the Cr. P. C.