IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2010 MR. A. P. BABU ... Appellant Versus MR. SHAJI BALKRISHNAN AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. S. Pai Kir, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 22nd June, 2010 P.C.: Heard. 2. The complaint filed by the petitioner herein under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came to be dismissed for default on 30/11/2009. The case of the complainant is that he was being represented by advocate Shri Daniel, but on 21/10/2009 Advocate Daniel had requested Shri Redkar to hold for him and the said advocate Shri Redkar informed advocate Daniel that the case was fixed on 26/11/2009, but when the complainant attended the Court on 26/11/2009, he was told by the clerk that the next date was fixed on 27/12/2009 and this the clerk told to the complainant based on a noting made on the daily Board. The copy of the daily Board has been produced. It is also the case of the complainant that thereafter advocate Daniel found that 27/12/2009, was a Sunday and therefore he made inquiries and found that the case was already dismissed for default on 30/11/2009. It is also the case of the complainant that 26/10/2009, 23/11/2009 and 25/11/2009 are the dates which the complainant was unaware of. It is also the case of the complainant that it is only the complainant, who had attended the Court on 26/11/2009 as the complainant's advocate was unable to attend the Court. The complainant as well as his advocate have filed affidavits in support of the facts stated by them. Even otherwise, it appears that substance of accusation was framed only on 27/11/2009 and the case was dismissed for default on the next date i.e. 30/11/2009. 3. It appears that there was a bonafide mistake on the part of the complainant and or his advocate in not attending the Court on 30/11/2009. Consequently, the explanation furnished by the complainant is accepted. As a result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30/11/2009 is hereby set aside. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the learned JMFC on 30th instant at 10.00 a.m. for further proceedings. 4. By order dated 2/03/2010, the complainant was required to deposit Rs.10,000/-. A sum of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid as costs to the respondents/accused and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be refunded to the complainant. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH