(1.) The complaint filed by Umesh Kumar complainant - appellant against the accused - respondents for an offence under section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended by Act 66 of 1988, read with section 420, I.P.C. was adjourned to 6th October, 1992, for serving notices of acquisition by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. The case was taken up on 5th October, 1992, as 6th October was declared holiday. On 5th October none of the parties were present and the following order was passed: Present-None Case taken up today as 6.10.1992 has been declared holiday. So, the case adjourned to 17.11.1992 for same proceedings. Parties/APP/accused be informed accordingly. On 17.11.1992 neither the complainant nor the accused turned up which resulted in dismissal of the complaint in default.
(2.) The complainant had moved an application under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for granting leave to appeal against the impugned order as in a summons case the dismissal of the complaint in default would mean to acquittal in view of the provisions of section 256 of the Code. The Division Bench of this Court issued notice to the respondents. Strangely enough the accused respondents have failed to turn up despite their service by affixation of notices on the door of their residential houses. Under these circumstances vide order dated 27th May, 1993, the Division Bench of this Court observed that there was no option but to dispose of appeal against acquittal in absence of the accused respondents.
(3.) We have now heard Mr. Cheema, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant appellant, besides perusing the record.