1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.631 OF 2010 IN APPEAL NO. OF 2010 MEDIATECH (INDIA) DISTRIBUTION PRIVATE LTD. ....Appellant. V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents. Ms. Neeta V. Parikh for the appellant. Mrs. P.P. Bhosale APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 7TH APRIL 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant. None appears on behalf of Respondent No.2 to 4 though they are served. 2. By order dated 16/2/2010, notice was issued and it was made returnable on 17/3/2010. In the order itself, it was made clear that the notice to indicate that the matter may be disposed of at the admission stage. In the notice dated 16/2/2010, it is specifically mentioned that the application would be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. In spite of service of notice, none appears on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Counsel for the applicant has filed affidavit of service dated 19/03/2010. 2 3. Heard. 4. Admit. 5. Matter is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 6. Appellant is challenging the order dated 16/1/2010 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the complaint for default. The learned Counsel for the appellant also invited my attention to the roznama. She submitted that the complainant was preset on each and every date and the accused was absent on most of the dates and on some dates he has taken exemption. She submitted that, however, on one day i.e on 16/1/2010, the complainant was absent and the learned judge on the same day dismissed the complaint under section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. I have perused the roznama. In my view,the learned Magistrate ought to have given one more opportunity to the appellant to appear before the Court. Instead of granting one more opportunity, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint under section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate, therefore, was not justified in exercising discretion vested in him under section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The impugned order dated 16/01/2010 is, therefore, set aside. Criminal Complaint is restored to the file. The Magistrate is directed to decide the 3 criminal complaint on merits and in accordance with law. Appellant may appear before the learned Magistrate on 12th May, 2010. The learned Magistrate may issue fresh notice to the accused and, thereafter, decide the case expeditiously. 8. Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)