1 Cri.Appeal 616-93 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.616 OF 1993 Kantichand Bam, adult ..Appellant an authorised Officer of M/s. Hope Textile Ltd. residing at 56, Patrakar Colony, Saket Choraha, Indore  452 001 Madhya Pradesh. V/s. Ramavtar Podar, adult ..Respondent having address for the purpose of service at flat No.AM-27, 5th floor, Aryan Mahal 'C' Road, Marine Drive, Churchgate, Bombay  400 020. None for the Appellant Ms Alpa T. Javeri, APP, for the State Mr.P.D.Desai with Mr.V.V.Vashi, Advocate, for the Respondent CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 5TH APRIL, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT . This Appeal is directed against the Order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, on 23rd September, 1993 acquitting the 2 Cri.Appeal 616-93 respondent under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act because the original Complainant in this case was absent. This Appeal was called out on 18th March, 2011 when none was present. Hence, the Appeal was adjourned to 1st April, 2011 and again called out today. Today also none appears for the appellant. Mr.P.D.Desai, Advocate appears for the respondent. There is no record which is required to be looked into, as the complaint was dismissed under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I have gone through the Order passed, roznama of the proceedings which the appellant has annexed to Appeal Memo and the grounds made out in the Memo of Appeal. The roznama shows as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, that it is not that the Complainant was absent only on 23rd September, 1993 when the complaint was dismissed. He was absent even on 16th September, 1993. Therefore, it is not that 3 Cri.Appeal 616-93 the appellant was absent for the first time or had justification enough for his absence. There can be no doubt that there is a discretion conferred on the Magistrate under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is not always necessary to dismiss the complaint upon noticing that the Complainant or his Advocate is absent. However, in this case, there was no reason for the learned Magistrate to condone the absence of the appellant on 2nd successive occasion. The appellant has already shown his concern for the cause by persistent absence even in this Court. 2. In view of this, Appeal has no merit and it is dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)