1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.912 OF 2009 Saishraddha Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd., Latur. ... APPLICANT VERSUS Virbhadra s/o Mahadappa Ambegave and another ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri S.B. Ghute, Advocate for the applicant Shri K.B. Choudhari, A.P.P. for respondent No.2/State Nobody appears for respondent No.1 in spite of service. ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 5th October, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present application, the applicant has sought leave to file the accompanying appeal against the order dated 30.12.2008 passed by learned 6th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Latur, dismissing the complaint filed by the applicant/ appellant (original complainant) in default for want of prosecution. 3. Perused the copy of the roznama produced at Exhibit 2 A as well as perused the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the applicnat/ appellant, which is reported at (2001) 7 SCC 726 (Mohd. Azeem Vs. A. Venkatesh and another) and more particularly in paragraph No.4 thereof, which reads as under : “In our opinion, the learned Magistrate and the High Court have adopted a very strict and unjust attitude resulting in failure of justice. In our opinion, the learned Magistrate committed an error in acquitting the accused only for absence of the complainant on one day and refusing to restore the complaint when sufficient cause for the absence was shown by the complainant.” 4. Considering the position that the applicant/ appellant (original complainant) did not get the opportunity to prosecute his complaint on merits & interest of justice requires that leave is granted to the applicant/ appellant to file the criminal appeal. 5. In the result, present application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A) thereof and leave to file accompanying criminal appeal is granted to the applicant and accompanying appeal be registered and numbered accordingly. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] fmp/cri913.09