1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3499 OF 2009 M/s. J.M. Tube Corporation ...Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Ashutosh M. Dube i/b. Mr. Yatin R. Shah for Applicant Mr.J.P. Kharge -APP for State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 22ND JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. None appears on behalf of the Respondents,though they were served. 2. The Applicant is challenging the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court dated 1.6.2009. By the said order, the learned Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the complaint and acquit the Accused since on that date the Complainant was absent. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that due steps were taken by the Applicant to serve 2 the Respondents in the Trial court and only for one day he was absent. 4. It is well settled position in law that the learned Magistrate has to exercise his power vested in him under section 256 of Cr.P.C. Judiciously. In my view, the learned Magistrate should not have dismissed the complaint merely because the Complainant had remained absent on the earlier date. It is submitted that the Advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicant had informed the complainant that she would pay the process fees and get the summons ready and, therefore, the Applicant did not attend the Court on that date. 5. Taking into consideration the explanation given by the Applicant for not attending the Court, in my view, the impugned order needs to be set aside. Leave, accordingly, granted. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.6.2009 is set aside. The complaint is restored to the file. Hearing of the trial is expedited. (V.M. KANADE J.)