RAKESH ROSHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) IN this case, notice was issued by this Court on the petitioner on 17. 7. 2004 and was duly served upon non-petitioner No. 2; but, despite service, none has appeared for and on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a complaint was filed by the petitioner under Sec. 138, Negotiable Instruments Act before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh wherein charge was framed against non-petitioner No. 2 and the Trial Court proceeded to record the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He submits that on 27. 4. 2004 the case was listed for evidence of the defence. On that day, it is submitted, the complainant was out of station and the complainant's counsel was busy in another Court, therefore, he could not appears when the case was called. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that later on when he went to the Court he was informed that his case was dismissed on default; and, therefore, he moved application for restoration of the case but his application was not decided by the Trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the petitioner is challenging order dated 27. 4. 2004 whereby the complaint was dismissed due to non-appearance of the petitioner though, on the same day, complainant's counsel moved application for restoration but the same was not decided by the Trial Court.