IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3979 OF 2006 M/s.Paintall Interiors .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3980 OF 2006 M/s.Paintall Interiors .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3981 OF 2006 M/s.Paintall Interiors .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.Y.Thorat for the applicant in all applications. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, A.P.P for the State in all applications. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 3rd April 2009. : 3rd April 2009. : 3rd April 2009. P.C.: . A notice for final disposal has been already issued. The office endorsement shows that notice for final disposal has been duly served to the concerned respondents. 2. These applications can be finally decided by a common judgment. The challenge in these applications is (2) to the order dated 29th June 2006 by which the complaints filed by the applicant have been dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in purported exercise of powers under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The complaints were filed by the applicant alleging commission of offences under section 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Process was issued on the complaints. The complaints have been dismissed on 29th June 2006 by observing that the applicant and his advocate were repeatedly absent when the matter was called out till 4.30 p.m. 3. The complaints were filed in the year 2005. The perusal of the roznama from 26th October 2005 shows that on 26th October 2005, 25th November 2005, 27th December 2005, 07th February 2006, 27th March 2006 and 11th May 2006 the complaints were adjourned as the concerned Court was vacant. Thus, on consecutive six dates the complaints were adjourned only on the ground that the concerned Court was vacant. On 21st June 2006 the applicant and his advocate were absent and the complaints were adjourned to 29th June 2006 for orders. On 29th June 2006 the impugned order has been passed. Perusal of the record shows that the complaints were (3) diligently prosecuted by the applicant. For a substantial period, the complaints were adjourned due to no fault on the part of the applicant as the Court was vacant. After the complaints were adjourned on six occasions as the Court was vacant, on 21st June 2006 the applicant remained absent and immediately on the next date i.e 29th June 2006 an order under section 256 of the said Code has been passed by the learned Magistrate. 4. Perusal of the roznama shows that the hearing of the complaints was never delayed on account of any lapse on the part of the applicant. When the complaints were repeatedly adjourned for more than six months on the consecutive dates on the ground that the Court was vacant, the learned Magistrate could not have found fault with the applicant for remaining absent on 21st June 2006 and 29th June 2006. This is not a case where discretionary power under section 256 of the said Code could have been exercised by the learned Magistrate. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The impugned orders dated 29th June 2006 are quashed and set aside and Complaint Nos.1454/SS/2005, 1455/SS/2005 and (4) 1456/SS/2005 are restored to file of the trial Court. (ii) The trial Court will proceed with the complaints in accordance with law after issuing fresh summons to the accused. (A.S.Oka,J)