JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has filed these criminal appeals under the provisions of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Code) against the orders dated 09.03.2019 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot in Criminal Case Nos. 19370 of 2009, 17324 of 2009, 11224 of 2012, 17334 of 2009, 6727 of 2010, 10979 of 2009, 17386 of 2009 and 1633 of 2013 whereby, the same were dismissed for default, for want of non prosecution.

2. As the issue involved in all these appeals is common, the same are being heard and decided together.

3. Brief facts of the case on hand are that the present appellant, who is the original complainant, had filed several complaints under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) against the respondent No. 2 herein before the learned Court below. Details of criminal cases and cheques are as under:

3.1 It is further the case that the said cases came to be dismissed by invoking the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Code as the complainant could not remain present before the trial Court on the date fixed before the learned trial Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. P. M. Dave for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Zaveri for the respondent - State. So far as the rest respondents are concerned, though served, nobody appears for the respondent No. 2 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2284 of 2019, 2285 of 2019, 2286 of 2019, 2299 of 2019, 2300 of 2019 and 2304 of 2019. Rule is not received back in Criminal Appeal No. 2282 of 2019, whereas, Rule has remained unserved in Criminal Appeal No. 2301 of 2019.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. P. M. Dave for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders dismissing the complaints and thereby, acquitting the accused are bad, unjust, improper, under misconception of law and facts, against the evidence available on record and contrary to the settled legal position of law. He also submitted that impugned orders are manifestly erroneous and demonstrably unsustainable.

4.2 The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that learned trial Court has grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that the criminal cases are of the years 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013 and are pending since long and despite several opportunities granted to the present appellant, neither appellant nor advocate for the appellant remained present for proceeding further in the matters and that the appellant appeared to have been not interested in proceedings with the the complaints against the respondent No. 2. The learned advocate further submitted that lastly, the cases were listed on 28.11.2014 before the learned trial Court and thereafter, they were never listed till 2019 and suddenly, on 09.03.2019, the matters were listed before the Lok Adalat, sans there being any information, either to the complainant or his advocate and without giving any single opportunity, the matters came to be dismissed for default, for want of prosecution. He submitted that the matters were listed almost after a period of five years and the learned tr