1 Cri-A-961-962-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIINAL APPLICATION NO. 961 OF 2010 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 962 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 961 OF 2010 Pulsar International Ltd. ... Appellant (Orig. complainant) vs. 1) Vitara Chemicals Ltd. ) 2) Umesh V. Bhatia - deleted ) 3) Arun H. Merchant ) 4. The State of Maharashtra ).. Respondents CRIMINAL APPLN. NO. 962 OF 2010 M/s. Shantilal Chhotalal & Co. .. Applicants/appellant vs. 1) Vitara Chemicals Ltd. ) 2) Umesh V. Bhatia - deleted ) 3) Arun H. Merchant ) 4. The State of Maharashtra ).. Respondents Ms. Usha Rai i/b. M/s. Mayur Narendra & Co.,Advocate, for the applicants. Mr.Udaya Sankar Samudrala,Advocate for the respondent No.3. Smt. P.P.Shinde, APP, for respondent No.4 - State. 2 Cri-A-961-962-10.sxw CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 6th September, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Two complaints filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the present applicants came to be dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. on 31.12.2009 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai on the ground that the complainant was absent, while the accused was present. The complainant seeks leave to prefer appeal against acquittal. 3. On perusal of the Roznama, it appears that from 18.12.2007 till 31.12.2009 when the complaint was dismissed under Sec.256 Cr.P.C., the complainant was rarely present. As and when he was present, adjournment was sought, otherwise, consistently he was absent while the accused was present most of the times. The complaints were pending since February 1999 though due to transfer of the matters from one Court to another, they were re-numbered in 2005 with a new number. The learned counsel for the complainant contends that negotiation was going on for settlement between the parties and, therefore, the 3 Cri-A-961-962-10.sxw complainant did not appear on certain dates. If the complainant would have been generally present but would be absent only on some dates or on the date of dismissal because of certain reasons, I would not find any difficulty in setting aside the impugned order. It appears that the complainant was habitually absent. His Advocate also used to remain absent and the matters were dismissed in default after they remained pending for about 10 years. In view of these circumstances, it is difficult to find any fault with the order of dismssal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. 4. Therefore, both the applications seeking leave to prefer appeal stand rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)