1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.104 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Coram: P.R. Borkar, J. Date : March 10, 2010 Shri T.M.Venjane Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.S.Chillarge Advocate for the Respondent. ---- 1. This is an appeal filed by the original complainant, who had filed private complaint bearing S.T.C. No. 493 of 2006 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur, on 15.2.2006 against present respondent for committing offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint came to be dismissed on 31.3.2008 for continuous absence of the complainant and failure on his part to take any 2 steps. Consequently, accused was acquitted. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal. 2. Record and proceedings is before this court. The facts borne out from the record are that, on 15.2.2006 petitioner presented complaint through his Advocate. The matter was fixed for verification and other steps on 2.3.2006. However, on 2.3.2006 and thereafter the complainant and his Advocate both remained absent. The roznama indicates that the case was adjourned to 22.5.2006, 19.7.2006, 13.10.2006. On 13.10.2006, it was adjourned to 26.2.2007 for passing order of dismissal. On 26.2.2007 it was adjourned to 26.10.2007 and finally on 31.3.2008, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. The reason given by the appellant in ground Nos. (III) and (IV) is that the appellant-complainant was suffering business crises and financial losses and, therefore, he could not attend the 3 matter on the dates fixed. The appellant also stated that on 24.10.2007, husband of his sister died and, therefore, he had to shoulder the responsibilities of his family, so also of family of his sister. 4. Shri Venjane, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that this court has condoned delay of 252 days in filing this appeal and in the circumstances, appeal be allowed and the criminal case be restored to file. 5. Advocate Shri Chillarge for the respondent opposed the prayer, by submitting that there was continuous absence of the complainant from the date of filing complaint. Even for verification, the complainant did not appear in the court and as such, there was no occasion to issue process. 6. After perusal of the record and proceedings and particularly the roznama, in my opinion, this is not a case to allow the appeal and interfere 4 with the dismissal of the complaint. Apparently, there was continuous negligence to attend the matter without justification. Even the Advocate of the complainant never turned up in the court on the dates fixed. It is worth noting that after 13.10.2006 the matter was specifically kept for dismissal in default and in spite of that, absence continued. 7. In view of above, this is not a case requiring interference. Hence, appeal is dismissed. Date:10/03/2010 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/criapl104.10