( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2835/2008 Surendra Deomansa Walale (Jain) vs Moiddin Bakruddin (M.B.Deshmukh) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr. S.D. Khati, Adv. for the applicant. Mrs. Anoop Parihar, APP for respondent. Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 26th August, 2009 Heard. 1) By this application the applicant prays for leave to file appeal under Sec.378 (4) of Cr.P.C. The proposed appeal in respect of challenge to the judgment and order dated 16/05/2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (Special Court for Sec.138 of N.I. Act), Nagpur in the case bearing Criminal Complaint Case No.507/2005. By order dated 16/05/2008 the learned J.M.F.C., Nagpur was dismissed the complaint under Sec.256 of Cr.P.C. on the ground of absence of the complainant, in the result that accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The impugned order mentions that the complainant had ( 2 ) failed to adduce evidence since 19/03/2008. The case was specifically fixed for dismissal on 25/04/2008 even on that date the complainant did not appear, Court adjourned it for dismissal on 02/05/2008. On 02/05/2008 also another chance was given to the complainant to adduce the evidence, but the complainant and the learned counsel remained absent. On these consecutive three adjourned dates the complainant remained absent. Under these circumstances, the complaint came to be dismissed under Sec.256 of Cr.P.C. In view of Sec.256 (1) of Cr.P.C., if the complainant does not appear on the adjourned dates, the Magistrate concerned can acquit the accused. 2) Learned Advocate for the complainant praying that the complaint proceeding was transferred to another Court and complainant was not aware of, therefore, notice ought to have been given to the complainant. However, to support such contentions, no document is pointed out before me. I do not point any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which appears well reason. Hence, the application for leave to file appeal is rejected. Judge. Khunte