POOJA Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition, arising out of dismissal in default of complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, has been preferred by complainant on the ground that the day on which case has been dismissed in default was fixed for service of respondent/accused through Non-bailable warrants, however, neither counsel nor complainant could appear on that day due to noting down the wrong date by the counsel, engaged by complainant.

(2.) Notice issued to the respondent was received unserved. However, on the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant had submitted that complaint has been dismissed in absence of respondent when the case was fixed for service of respondent. However, the respondent was not present on that day and therefore, for adjudication of present petition wherein explanation with respect to absence of complainant or his counsel, before the trial Court on the day of passing of impugned order, is to be explained, presence of respondent/accused may not be necessary.

(3.) Without accepting or rejecting the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner, record of the trial Court was summoned for determining the issue whether service of respondent is necessary for adjudication of present petition or not.