THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.2031 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal revision case is filed against the order dated 10.05.2010 passed in C.F.No.515 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent- accused issued a cheque bearing No.996565 dated 06.12.2009 for an amount of Rs.1,12,000/- due to the petitioner-complainant and when the said cheque was presented for realization, the same was bounced with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. Thereafter, after following the procedure provided for under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner-complainant filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler. However, the office took some objection with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. The petitioner- complainant resubmitted the said complaint stating that the said complaint was filed within a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the trial Court, after satisfying with the said explanation, adjourned the matter to 10.05.2010 for recording of sworn statement of the complainant. On 10.05.2010, the trial Court passed the following impugned order: “Complainant is absent. No representation. Hence, the complaint is dismissed for default”. Heard both sides. Since the matter is at C.F. stage and no cognizance is taken, the usual notice to the 1st respondent-accused is dispensed with. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant contended that the absence of the complainant was neither willful nor intentional. He further submits that since the counsel appearing for the complainant in the Court below has wrongly noted the date of adjournment, the complainant or his counsel could not appear in the Court below when the matter was called. From a perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the petitioner-complainant was not aware of the date of hearing of the case and, therefore, he could not attend before the Court below on 10.05.2010. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Court below ought not to have dismissed the said complaint without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner- complainant. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. ________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 31-01-2011 Gsn.