(1) (9) & (910) Appln 2041 & 2042/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2041 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2042 OF 2010 Bipin L Vora .. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Manish Bohra for the Applicant. Ms. Rohini M. Amin for Respondent No.2. Mr. S. A. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 29th April, 2011. P.C. 1. This application is for leave to file an Appeal against the order of dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the Complainant failed to prosecute the complaint diligently. Notings/roznamas of the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai show that the complaint was presented since 27.11.2008. The plea of accused was recorded on 13.07.2009. Thereafter the Complainant remained absent. He did not file his affidavit of examination-in-chief. He took various long dates for that purpose from 26.08.2009. The Complaint came to be adjourned for the absence of the Complainant to 27.10.2009, 05.01.2010, 05.02.2010 and 16.02.2010 when it was dismissed. 2. The Complainant claims that he is 77 years old and was ill. He has shown his illness by two blood reports and one OGD Report. Blood reports are dated (2) (9) & (910) Appln 2041 & 2042/10 30.11.2009 and 04.12.2009. The report of OGD is dated 01.12.2009. He was hospitalized for one day on 30.11.2009 when his haemoglobin had dropped and endoscopy was done. The medical certificate produced by the Complainant is dated 09.02.2010. 3. It would have to be seen whether this hospitalization entitles the Complainant to remain absent from 26.08.2009 to 16.02.2010 constraining the Ld. Magistrate to adjourn the complaint from time to time. 4. The complaint was adjourned from 26.08.2009 to 27.10.2009. Upon the absence of the Complainant, the complaint came to be adjourned for two months again on 27.10.2009. Upon his further absence, the complaint came to be adjourned for about 2 ½ months. On 05.01.2010 the complaint came to be adjourned for one month. One 05.02.2010 once again it came to be adjourned. 5. Upon the complaint of the complainant, rather than the Complainant the accused and the Court worked. The Ld. Magistrate was, therefore, rightly constrained to dismiss the complaint on 16.02.2010 as on that date the affidavit of examination-in-chief was also not filed. There is nothing to show that it could not be filed well after the hospitalization of the complainant on 30th November, 2009. At least if that was done and sent through his Advocate, his personal presence could have been excused. A step in the proceeding could have been taken. Not doing even that tantamounts to needless harassment to the accused and needless work for the Court. (3) (9) & (910) Appln 2041 & 2042/10 6. Order of the Ld. Magistrate cannot be faulted. Leave to appeal is refused. (ROSHAN DALVI , J.)