JUDGMENT :

Jay Sengupta, J.

1. The two revisional applications being CRR 1564 of 2018 and CRR 3022 of 2019 pertain to the same proceeding. Therefore, they are taken up for hearing together. While CRR 1564 of 2018 was filed by the accused challenging an order closing defence evidence, CRR 3022 of 2019 has been filed by the complainant seeking an expeditious disposal of the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

2. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner in CRR 3022 of 2019 is taken on record.

3. Despite an earlier service upon the accused and a recent service upon the learned advocate on record of the accused, no one appears on behalf of the accused in respect of the two revisions.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits as follows. The impugned proceeding was initiated by the complainant in 2014. In spite of this, the proceeding has remained pending for no fault of the complainant. On several dates, the accused prayed for adjournment. Since 2016, dates were fixed for the accused to adduce defence evidence. Yet, they did not do so. Accordingly, on 15.09.2017 the defence evidence was closed and a date was fixed for argument.