Cr.A. No. 269 of 2011. 2.9.2011 Present: Mr. Rakesh Manta, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent though served. Records received. None appears on behalf of the respondent despite valid service for today. Accordingly, he is proceeded against ex parte. Herd. The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 20.6.2011 passed by the learned trial Magistrate whereby a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the Act”), filed by him against the respondent was dismissed for his non-appearance on the date of hearing (20.6.2011) fixed for his evidence, which was second opportunity for him to lead the evidence. A perusal of the impugned order dated 20.6.2011 would go to show that though the complaint was fixed for complainant’s evidence and the same could not have proceeded further in his absence, yet the fact remains that the respondent-accused was also not present in the Court on that day and on an application having been moved by his learned counsel, his personal appearance was exempted for that day. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and on an overall view of the matter, I am satisfied that it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice in case the appellant is afforded one more opportunity to lead evidence and have a trial on merits in accordance with law, as it would not cause any prejudice to the respondent. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed subject to costs of Rs. 250/-. Consequently, impugned order dated 20.6.2011 shall stand set aside. The appeal stands disposed of. The appellant shall put in appearance before the learned trial Court on 23.9.2011. The trial Court record be returned forthwith so as to reach well before the date fixed. The appellant shall tender the costs in the learned trial Court. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. September 2, 2011. (cr)