1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.497 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ---- OF 2007 Mr.Nemchand Chandanmal Sanghavi .... Applicant Vs. Mr.Prashant Shashikant Muchandi .... Respondents & Anr. Mr. Sandesh Patil i/by Mr.P.P. Jadhav, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Pankaj Das, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 25th August, 2009 P.C. 1. This revision application is filed to challenge the correctness and legality of the order dated 3rd October 2006, by which the complaint filed by the applicant under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is dismissed for want of prosecution and respondents acquitted of the offence. The impugned order shows that the complaint has been pending for taking steps to serve the summons. For more than a year, the complainant was not attending the Court and therefore the court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution. The only explanation sought to be given in the application for non attendance of the applicant that he had been told by the Advocate engaged by him in the proceedings that he need not remain present in the court and the matter would be looked after by the learned Advocate. Relying on 2 the advice of the Advocate, the applicant did not remain present in the Court on each date of the matter during the period of one year, which resulted into the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that unfortunately the applicant relied upon the word of his Advocate and requests that the applicant be given an opportunity to have his complaint heard on merits instead of the same being dismissed for want of prosecution. I have heard both the sides. Perused the complaint and the order. I am of the opinion that the applicant may be given a chance to have his complaint heard on merits. The respondent however is required to be compensated the costs. Hence, the Criminal Application is allowed. The order dated 3rd October 2006 is set aside. The complaint No.1887 of 2005 is restored to file on condition of the applicant pays costs quantified Rs.15,000/- to respondent no. 1, within a period of two weeks. (SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)