@ Page No.® KN THE HIGH d‘“‘t()‘UR’l[" “F £3'EII'I'ATTISG ARI-I AT BILA$PUR $h&$a Ban$§ ¢n m¥ 11:”E'!‘ITI(}NER ‘JagdiSh Rai, S/o Lalj‘ Shri BuNRai, (JO MPLAI N ANT aigm abom. 59 yeamw Ri/ o Jiianjay Nagal‘ Ward, Raimay Colony, Jagd alpur, [)imrict 'Ek’istar: (C(i.) VEEIDRSHS mwIPONIDENT : (hmal li’and‘sy, ACCUSED EE‘y/o :E::‘xhri Lalji Pandey, Aged almm 35 years, 1' iamjii ]31"‘.211’1man, (3cm lpatim'). w Teacher, R/ 0 Awantil-(a Colo ny, 1 A3: Jagda‘lpur, 13.5., w I30clhg}'1aL DiSh'id Bastar, (GIL) ALFIDLLJICA'l‘INJN UNDHR $HUI‘IUN 4 2 OF TIME: CODE OF CIR E Mm! [1h ll‘ . l""JR OGE'DURE (9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. No. 01 of 2006 APPLICANT - Jagdish Rai S/o Late Shri B.N. Rai VERSUS RESPONDENT opal Pandey S/o Lalji Pandey Shri Subhash Yadav, counsel for the applicant. Shri Vivek Sharma cbunsel for respondent. *,3 PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL «‘I ‘ PROCEDURE. ORDER (10.03.2010) £ By this petition the applicant calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 24.6.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jagdalpur, in Criminal Revision No. 95/2005 dismissing the revision preferred by him against the order dated 28.7.005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalapur, in Criminal Case No. 24/2005 dismissing the complaint case filed by the applicant. 2. From the documents available on record it appear that on 6.9.2004 a complaint case was filed by the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. On 14.1.2005 the case was registered by the learned Magistrate and the applicant was directed to pay process fee fr service of notice on the respndent. It is not dpu t isted that the process fee as directed was not paid by he applicant d on 7.3.2005 again though he appeared before the Court, process fee was not paid by him. Thereafter, on .4.2005 also the appicant appeared before the Court but process fee was not paid by him. n 24.5.2005 though the applicant remained asent bfore the Court, he was represeted by his counsel but the procss fee was not paid on that date also. Thereafter, the se was taken up n 28.7.2005 but on that date also the pross fee was not paid by the applicant a s he and his counsel remained absent, complaint case was dismied by the ial Curt. This said order was G 2 s o o an 2 l O b e n e , ca I o ce ‘ nd a I ss tr o ‘ “2.. challenged by the applicant by way of Criminal Revision No. 95/2005, however, the revisional Court also dismissed the revision holding that despite sufficient opportunity the applicant had failed to pay process fee and as neither the applicant himself nor his counsel appeared before the trial Court on 28.7.2005, dismissal of the complaint case under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was justified. The revisional Court further held that on 28.7.2005 absence of the applicant and his counsel is not justified though the plea of ailment of the mother of the counsel for the applicant who also happens to be the daughter-in—Iaw of the applicant, was taken by him but no such document was filed before the trial Court. The revisional ‘Court has further held that absence of the applicant and his counsel was not bona fide and therefore dismissal of the complaint case is in accordance with law. t 3. From the documents available on record it is clear that despite sufficient opportunity, the applicant has not paid the process fee as directed by the trial Court and neither the applicant nor his counsel remained present before the said Courton 28.7.2005. As no document was tiled by the applicant showing any justification for his or his counsel’s absence on 28.7.2005, the Courts below appear to be fully justified in dismissing the complaint case of the applicant. The view taken by the trial Court in dismissing the complaint case filed by the applicant and affirmation of the same by the revisional Court being in accordance with law does not require any interference by this Court in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The petition thus being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such. ’ " Pritinker Diwaker Judge Sdl- @