RAJIV SOOD Vs. KAMAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed in the year 2004 in which the accused was summoned but the service was effected very late. Notice of accusation was served and the case was fixed for evidence of the complainant for 26.04.2010. On the day fixed for the evidence, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was taken up by the Duty Magistrate and was adjourned for 10.06.2010. There was no appearance on behalf of the complainant on the adjourned hearing and the complaint was dismissed for non prosecution.

(2.) The counsel for the appellant contends that the complainant had wrongly noted the date as 01.08.2010 as earlier the case was being adjourned for long dates and after a gap of four months and when the appellant went to the Court and found that the case was not listed then he came to know that the case had been dismissed in default on 10.06.2010 and he approached his lawyer and filed the appeal. Reliance was placed upon Narender Parashar V. Jagbir Singh, 2009 3 RCR(Cri) 246, Neh Pal Sharma Vs. Bijender Singh, 2009 2 RCR(Cri) 751.

(3.) The contention on the other hand is that the date had been fixed by the Duty Magistrate in the presence of the complainant and the trial Court had waited for the complainant till 4:00 PM and the complaint was rightly dismissed for non prosecution.