NAGAR PARISHAD Vs. CHATRAPAL SINGH THROUGH COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the judgment of the learned trial Court is erroneous and perverse.

(2.) I have gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court and I find that the learned trial Court was justified in dismissing the complainant due to absence of the complainant on 15-1-1986. Though under Sec. 256 sufficient cause must be there in order to exempt the appearance of the complainant, but no cause has been shown by the complainant and thereafter the learned trial Court dismissed the complainant due to absence of the complainant. The matter relates to the incident which is said to have taken place in the year 1982 so after a lapse of nine years it will not be proper and just to interfere in the judgment of acquittal.

(3.) I find no perversity or erroneous in the judgment of the learned trial Court, this appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.