1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.258 OF 2009 Jagtarsingh s/o Puransingh Sheko, age: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o Yeola Road, Kopargaon, Tq.Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. Appellant Versus Balasaheb s/o Muktaji Thorat, age: major, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Puntamba, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar. Respondent Mr.A.D.Shinde, advocate for the appellant. Mr.K.F.Shingare, advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 03rd July, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard Shri A.D.Shinde, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri K.F.Shingare, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2 Admit. By consent of learned Counsel for respective parties, appeal is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 3 Appellant, who is original complainant, has presented a 2 complaint against the Respondent – original accused complaining commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is the contention of complainant that an amount of Rs. 56,599/- was recoverable towards legally enforceable liability from the accused. The complainant is proprietor of a firm dealing in selling of tractors. Accused has purchased a tractor and towards repayment of part consideration, cheque was issued in favour of complainant. On presentation of the cheque, same was returned back with an endorsement, “insufficient funds”. After presentation of the complaint, the Court directed issuance of process and in response to the process issued by the Court, Respondent-accused caused his appearance. The matter was prescribed for recording evidence. However, on the given date, as the complainant was not keeping good health, he was not in a position to lead evidence. The application for adjournment came to be rejected by the trial Court on the ground that application is not accompanied by medical certificate. Another reason set out for rejection of the application is that same is tendered at about 4.45 p.m. In the Court. 4 I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for respective parties. It appears that at the time of presentation of the application before the Court, medical certificate was not produced. However, at the time of tendering application seeking review of the order, such medical certificate was tendered. The fact that complainant was not keeping good health has not been controverted by the Respondent. In these circumstances, therefore, it was appropriate to condone the absence and extend further opportunity to the complainant to lead 3 evidence. In such matters, the Courts are required to adopt liberal view and extend fullest opportunity to the parties to raise their contentions before the Court. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the order passed by the trial Court needs to be set aside and the matter is required to be remitted back to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. 5 In the result, appeal is allowed. The order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopargaon on 13.03.2009 below Exhibit-21 as well as order dated 16.03.2009 below Exhibit-22 in S.T.C. No.199/2007 are quashed and set aside. Complaint is restored to its original number. The trial Judge shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with provisions of law. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/criappeal25809