Criminal Appeal No.186-SB of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Appeal No.186-SB of 2009
Date of Decision:23.01.2009
Rajneesh Arora
.....Appellant
Vs.
Veena
.....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
****
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This appeal is directed against order dated 30.7.2007 passed by
the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in complaint
No.490 of 4.9.2004 vide which the learned trial Court dismissed the
complaint bearing caption Rajneesh Arora v. Veena in default and acquitted
the accused.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides
perusing the impugned order with due care and circumspection, though
none has come forward to argue on behalf of the respondent- accused.
Learned counsel for the appellant assiduously urged that the
appellant- complainant had been appearing before the learned trial Court
regularly since September, 2004 when he had filed the complaint. The
accused could only be served in the year 2005 whereafter the case was fixed
Criminal Appeal No.186-SB of 2009 -2-
for evidence of the complainant. The evidence could not be recorded as in
between, the negotiations for compromise had started and thus case was
adjourned from time to time. It was in such circumstances that the case had
been adjourned for short dates firstly from 6.7.2007 to 24.7.2007 and then
to 30.7.2007, on which date, the complainant could not put in his
appearance being a government employee and the impugned order was
passed dismissing his complaint and acquitting the accused. The impugned
order being contrary to the principles of law is liable to be set aside.
I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these
submissions. Needless to say, this is a complaint under Section 138/142 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. The reason assigned by the complainant-
appellant for his absence on 30.7.2007 is that he being a government
employee could not leave his office without prior permission. It would be
too harsh on the complainant- appellant to non-suit him merely for his non-
appearance on one date as he had been regularly appearing on all the dates
since the date of institution of the complaint. An identical view has been
taken by this Court in re: Purushotam Mantri v. Vinod Tandon alias
Hari Nath Tandon, 2008(3) Punjab Law Reporter 595 (P&H).
Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The complaint is ordered to be
restored to its original number for its decision on merits in accordance with
law. The complainant- appellant is directed to put in his appearance before
the learned trial Court on 27.2.2009. The trial Court shall grant one
opportunity to complainant to adduce his entire evidence on the date to be
fixed by it. However, such date for adducing evidence shall be fixed in
such a manner that there shall be a minimum gap of one month in between
Criminal Appeal No.186-SB of 2009 -3-
27.2.2009 and the date for adducing evidence. The appeal is accordingly
accepted. The Registry is directed to transmit a certified copy of this
judgment to the learned trial Court at the earliest possible.
January 23, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE
