1 apeal573of06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2006
Gruh Finance limited,
A body Corporate constituted under
Companies Act, 1956, and having its
Registered office at "GRUH" Netaji Marg
near Mithakali Six Roads, Ellosbridge,
Ahmedabad-6 (State of Maharashtra) and
having amongst other branches at kaweri
Complex, Maltekadi Raod, Amaravati,
acting through its Branch manager, Shri.
Omprakash H. Patel, aged about 30 years,
Occupation - Serivce, R/o. L.I.C. Colony,
Amravati
....APPELLANT
VERSUS
Shri. Indrajeet s/o. Motisingh Rajput,
aged about 40 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o. C/o. Mahatma Jyotiba Phule
Mahavidyalaya, Bhatkuli, Tahsil, Bhatkuli,
District Amravati, PSO Frezarpura.
....RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________
Mr. Abhijit Sambaray, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. S.M. Ghodeswar, Advocate for respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATED : 6
OCTOBER, 2017
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The appellant is challenging the order dated 5.7.2005 in ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:42 ::: 2 apeal573of06 Criminal Complaint Case 2359 of 2002, delivered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, by and under which, the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was dismissed for want of prosecution.
2 With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, I have perused the order-sheet. I have also perused the affidavit sworn by Advocate Nilesh Khandelwal, the learned counsel for the appellant / complainant in the Trial Court. The affidavit states that the learned counsel was suffering from kidney diseases from 25.6.2005 to 1.8.2005 and during the said period was being treated by Dr. Sony of Amravati. The learned counsel was advised rest and could not attend the Court from 25.6.2005 to 10.7.2005.
3 I have no reason to disbelieve the statement on oath made by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant before the Trial Court. That apart, I am satisfied from a perusal of the order-sheet, that except the date on which the order of dismissal came to be passed and the date of hearing preceding, the appellant has diligently attended the Court.
::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:42 :::
3 apeal573of06 4 In this view of the matter, the order dismissing the
complaint for want of prosecution is not sustainable and is set aside. 5 Registry is directed to immediately send back the records. 6 The learned Magistrate is directed to issue notices to the parties and to finally decide the complaint within six months from the receipt of the record.
7 The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE Belkhede ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2017 02:17:42 :::