Ndm 1 appln.786.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 786 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL Yashwant Dattaram Gangawane. ... Applicant versus Ashok Mathuradas Panchal and ors. ... Respondents ------------------------ Ms. Noorseema M.U. Baig, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.A.Shaikh, APP. ------------------------ CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATE : 30th July, 2009. P.C. 1 The application is filed for leave to appeal against the order dated 07th November, 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting Respondent No. 1 of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Respondent No. 1 is absent despite of service of notice. The order dated 24th March, 2009 directing issuance of notice to Respondent No. 1 specifies that if the leave is granted, the appeal will be forthwith taken for final disposal at the admission stage. The applicant is the original Complainant in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The copy of the roznama annexed to the present application shows that after the trial commenced in the proceedings, the evidence on behalf of the applicant was completed with his cross-examination on 17th October, 2008. The roznama Ndm 2 appln.786.09.sxw records that no other witnesses were present. According to Ms. Noorseema learned Counsel for the Applicant, the Applicant was not to examine any other witness. The trial Court adjourned the matter to 05th November, 2008. On the adjourned date, the applicant was present in the Court, however, his lawyer was absent. Respondent No. 1 and his advocate were also absent. The Court adjourned the case to 06th November, 2008 for the parties to take steps. On 06th November, 2008, both the sides were absent and the trial was adjourned to 07th October, 2008. The explanation offered by the applicant for absence of both himself as well as his lawyer is far from satisfactory. The applicant claims that he was absent on 06th November, 2008 as he had gone to his native place because his mother was ill. There are no particulars whatsoever stated either of illness of the mother or of the applicant visit to native place. The absence of the lawyer is sought to be explained on the ground that he had gone to his native place during the Diwali vacation and had not yet returned. The trial Court has rightly considered the total negligence on the part of the applicant to arrive at a conclusion that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. The applicant has not made out any case for grant of leave to appeal. Hence the application for leave to appeal is rejected. In view of the rejection of leave the Criminal Appeal is also dismissed. SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.