1 Appln 1616-2008 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1616 OF 2008 Rajiv Basil Peris .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors .Respondents Mr.G.A.Lobo, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.J.P.Kharge, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. . This is an application for leave to file an Appeal against the Order of discharge passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dadar on 12 th June, 2007 & rejection of his application for restoring the complaint on 10 th July, 2007. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, applicant was suffering from some ailment which prevented him from going to the Court. Applicant's learned Counsel was about to reach to the Court and his colleague Ms Kulkarni was 2 Appln 1616-2008 present in the Court. Yet the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant then approached Court again for restoration of the complaint but the Court rejected application saying that Court did not having such powers. Then the applicant preferred a Revision Petition. Revisional Court also rejected the Revision Petition. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the record. This Medical Certificate of Doctor on which the applicant places reliance which is at Exhibit 'E-4' at page No. 44 bears no date. The learned Judge has observed in his Order dated 12 th June, 2007 which is at Exhibit 'I' that when case was posted on 22 nd August, 2006, Complainant was absent, when the matter adjourned to 7 th November, 2006 on the next day also 3 Appln 1616-2008 Complainant was absent; when the matter was posted on 12 th June, 2007, on that day also Complainant was absent. If the Complainant did not prosecute his complaint diligently when accused remained present on every date, the learned Magistrate cannot be said to have erred in passing the impugned order. Once dismissed complaint would not have been restored. The impugned orders do not call for any interference from this Court. Leave refused. Appeal is dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)