( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3757 OF 2007 Kuppaiyandu Muthu Rajan .. Appellant Versus Dhanraj H. Rathod .. Respondent Shri Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 07.01.2010 P.C. :- 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against order of acquittal passed under section 256 of Cr.P.C., whereby the complaint filed by present applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was dismissed for absence of the complainant. 2. Present applicant has filed S.T.C.C. No. 3563 of 2006 for committing offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. The complaint was for hearing on 27.08.2007, on which day application Exh.19 was given by the complainant for ( 2 ) adjournment. However, the same came to be dismissed. After hearing advocates for both sides, it is observed that the complainant was absent on that day, whereas accused was present as usual. On perusal of record, it was found that the plea of the accused was recorded on 19.10.2006 and the matter was posted for hearing. Though the accused was present on each and every date personally, same was not position with the complainant. The complainant filed application for exemption on various dates and his attendance was exempted as last chance on 16.06.2007. That was application Exh. 18. Even long adjournment of 2-3 months was granted to make the complainant available and in-spite of that he remained absent and therefore application Exh.19 was rejected as thereby further adjournment of two months was sought. Consequently, after rejection of application Exh.19, the Court proceeded to dismiss the complaint and acquitted the accused under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. 3. The learned advocate Shri Sachin Deshmukh argued vehemently and said that the Court ought to have given last chance. He also said that the copy of the order passed on Exh.19 shows that already time was granted but one more ( 3 ) chance could have been given. 4. After going through the reasons given in the order below Exh.19, it only appears that for almost one year and three months the complainant was absent after plea of the accused was recorded. The copy of complaint and application Exh.19 is not placed on record. Only copy of order below application Exh.19 is produced. So, this Court is not aware of the actual reason given in the application and if it was supported by some document like medical certificate. Moreover, the applicant could have produced Roznama to show that the contents of the order were not true and he had earlier remained present. 5. In the facts and circumstances, I am not satisfied that this is a case where leave to file appeal against acquittal should be granted. Hence, leave rejected. The application stands dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/cra3757.07