1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2142 OF 2010 M/s.Anchor Electrical Pvt.Ltd. ...Applicants vs. M/s.Gautam Enterprises & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rajesh S. Patil for the Applicants. Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State. Mr.Rohan Surve for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JULY 6, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicants and counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. 2 This application is filed for challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant. Notice was issued on 3rd May, 2010 and in the said 2 order, it was clarified that the application would be disposed of at the stage of admission. 3 Counsel for the applicant submitted that the complaint was filed on 24th July, 2009 and thereafter, it was adjourned to 29th October, 2009. On the next date, the complainant was not well and therefore, could not remain present. It was, therefore, adjourned to 27th January, 2010. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant had perused the board on that day, however, the case was not listed on the board and therefore, as per the practice followed in that court, he was asked to find out from room no.63 whether the case was transferred to that court. However, on verification, it was found that the said matter also was not on that board. He, therefore, came back and made enquiry with the court clerk who informed him that the matter has been dismissed after it was taken on board. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial court ought to have given one more opportunity 3 to the applicant. He submitted that this fact was immediately brought to the notice of the trial court on the very same day, however, the learned Magistrate expressed his inability to review the said order. 4 Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2, however, vehemently urged that the applicant had not produced xeroxed copy of the board. He also submitted that the complainant has remained absent on two dates and therefore, the Sessions Court was justified in rejecting the application. He submitted that there was no reason for this court to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint on account of absence of the complainant particularly, when his presence was very much required for recording the verification. 5 Heard both the learned Counsel for the applicant and Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 at length. In my view, the discretion vested in the 4 trial court under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. ought to have been judiciously exercised and the trial court ought to have given one more opportunity to the complainant in recording the verification, particularly, when the complaint was dismissed on the third date after it was filed. 6 Under these circumstances, therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is restored to the file. The matter is again remanded back to the trial court. 7 Application, accordingly, is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)