Ambassador Cards Pvt. Ltd. vs State and Another

H.R. Malhotra, J.—This appeal arises out of impugned order dated 19.7,2005 whereby the complaint of the complainant-appellant filed u/s 138, Negotiable instrument Act. was dismissed In default as he failed to appear on that date, The accused persons were present on that date,

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as also learned Counsel for the respondent Learned Counsel for the respondent states that appellant has not been able to prove that hit absence was not deliberate but accidental one. He states so on the strength that the Counsel had not placed on record the copy of the diary showing that he had to attend another case at Karkardooma Courts.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that great prejudice shall be caused to the complainant-appellant if his complaint goes undefended, particularly when the amount involved in this case is about Rs. 4,27,272/-, Therefore, in the interest of justice the appeal is allowed, resulting in e restoration of the complaint to its original number and position.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondent states that respondent has to come from Jaipur on every hearing. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that he shall not oppose the exemption application of the respondent once moved in the Court below.

For the reasons stated in the appeal, which is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the appellant, the appeal is allowed. The case be remanded back to s the Metropolitan Magistrate to deal with the matter afresh in accordance with law.

Parties are directed to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 7th February, 2008.

Name of the Counsel for the appellant be shown in the cause list.