Cr.R No.214/2002 03.06.2009 Present: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Surinder Saklani, counsel for the respondent. Heard and gone through the record. Petitioner had filed a complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the respondent, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Matter was taken up on 3rd September, 2002 and adjourned to 21st September, 2002, for recording preliminary evidence. On that date, the petitioner did not appear and the complaint was dismissed, for want of prosecution. In the present Revision Petition, it is alleged that the petitioner was not represented by any counsel, before the Judicial Magistrate and he had been prosecuting the complaint personally. His plea is that on 3rd September, 2002, when the case was adjourned for preliminary evidence, he misheard the next date as 30th September, 2002 and that was the reason for his non-appearance before the Magistrate, on 21st September, 2002. The plea is supported by affidavit. I see no reason to disbelieve the same. Hence, the Revision Petition is allowed and impugned order, dated 21st September, 2002, dismissing the complaint, for want of prosecution, is set aside. The complaint is remanded to the concerned Magistrate for disposal, according to law. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 24th June, 2009. Record of the Magistrate, together with a copy of this order be sent to the learned Magistrate, immediately, so that it reaches the said Magistrate before the date fixed for the appearance of the petitioner, before the Magistrate. June 3, 2009(sd) (Surjit Singh), J.