K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. On 110.2000 the case was fixed for recording the statement of complainant. But since on 110.2000 neither the complainant nor his Counsel was present in the Court, the trial Court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused respondent.

2. The complainant appellant then moved an application for recalling the order dated 110.2000 on the grounds mentioned therein. But the application for restoration was also dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 30.1.2003.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously contended that after substance of the offence was read over to the accused respondent, the case was posted to 14.1999 for recording the complainants evidence. But it was adjourned to 15.1999. It was again adjourned to 26.1999. According to the learned Counsel, on all these dates the complainant and his Counsel were present before the trial Court. The appellant complainant offered explanation for his non-appearance that under `Operation Pink the Government was demolishing Baramdas and in the process his shop was also damaged and that he lost his mental balance. Learned Counsel argued that Sec