( 1 ) ). The challenge has been made by the petitioner original complainant in the Criminal Case No. 277/95 under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, to the orders passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad and of the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Ahmedabad in the matter of restoration of the case aforestated dismissed for non-prosecution. This criminal case was registered on the private complaint filed by the petitioner.

( 2 ) ). The facts of the case are that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 used to purchase "mendo" from the petitioner. The last purchase of Mendo on credit worth Rs. 1,21,687. 00 was made by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against bills of various dates. Towards the payment of the amount aforesaid, the respondent No. 2 issued cheques, the details of which are given in paragraph No. 3 of this Special Criminal Application. On presentation of these cheques by the petitioner with his bankers - The Kalupur Commercial Co-operative Bank, Chowka Bazaar, Ahmedabad for encashment thereof, the same were return by his bankers with endorsement "insufficient balance" and "exceeds arrangement". On 29th December, 1994, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 through his Advocate. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 did not make the payment of the amount of the dishonoured cheques and the petitioner in these facts left with no option but to file the criminal complaint, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 277 of 1995, in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10 at Ahmedabad.

( 3 ) ). The summons of the complaint were duly served upon the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and they put their appearance in the complaint.

( 4 ) ). It is submitted that this criminal case was on the Board of the Court on 24th October, 1996 and the next date was given 24. 12. 1996, but on that date when the petitioner went to the Court to attend the matter, it was not on the Board of the Court. The petitioners Advocate told to the petitioner that he may go and the date fixed in the matter would be intimated to him. As the intimation was not sent by his Advocate of the date fixed in the matter, the petitioner went to the Court and enquired about the matter. On 9th March, 1997, the petitioner found that the other side had made a false application before the Court that the petitioner was not remaining present and therefore, the complaint should be dismissed for default. The learned trial Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

( 5 ) ). Against this order of the learned trial Court, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 66 of 1998, which came to be decided by the Additional City Sessions Judge, at Ahmedabad by his order dated 11. 2. 1999. The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed and hence this petition.

( 6 ) ). The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Courts below have taken the matter very casually and the substance of the matter has not been considered. Referring to Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below have not considered this provision of the Code, which provides that where the complainant is represented by a pleader and where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. In this case the complainant was represented by the Advocate. On 24th October, 1996, the petitioner was present, but on this date the matter was adjourned to 24. 12. 1996. On 24. 12. 1996 the petitioner went to the Court, but his matter was not on the Board and his Advocate told him not to stay for the date and further told that he would inform him the next date as soon as the matter is listed for hearing. In these facts what the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged is that the petition