M. Venugopal, J.

The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the order of dismissal dated 01.08.2016 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kotagiri in S.T.C.No.314 of 2010, whereby and where under, the Complaint was ultimately dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C.

2. At the outset, this Court points out that today, Crl.O.P.No.23512 of 2016 [seeking Grant of Special Leave to prefer an Appeal] was allowed by this Court for the reasons assigned therein.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Respondent/Accused is absconding and only because of that reason, NBW, issued against him, was not executed. It is further represented that when that be the fact situation, the trial Court had wrongly observed in the impugned order that the Appellant/Complainant had not taken any steps to execute the Non Bailable Warrant.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the trial Court, when dismissing the complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C., should have directed the concerned Police to produce the Respondent/Accused before Court after executing the NBW. However, such a thing was not resorted to in the present case.

5. The prime contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that the Respondent/Accused soon after receipt of summons had appeared before the trial Court and when the case was posted for cross examination of P.W.1 neither the Respondent/Accused nor his counsel represented before the trial Court and therefore, NBW was issued.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in fact, the Appellant/Complainant for the past three years was taking necessary steps to execute NBW. However, the Respondent/Accused is evading the clutches of the Police.

7. It is to be noted that in an Appeal against the order of acquittal, the High Court has all the requisite powers to reconsider the entire issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings, in place of the findings recorded by the trial Court. If the findings of the trial Court are perverse, arbitrary and capricious, then also, the High Court can interfere. Even if there is any misreading of evidence or if the material fact or point of law was not taken into account by the trial Court, at the time of passing the impugned order, then also, the High Court can interfere with the impugned order.

8. It cannot be ignored that the absence of a Complainant on the date of hearing cannot be a reason for acquitting the Respondent/Accused in a routine or casual manner. Nowhere the Criminal Procedure Code contemplates that for the absence of a Complainant on a particular date of hearing in a given case, the Complaint should be dismissed or an Accused be discharged.

9. It is to be remembered that in respect of a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for the absence of a Complainant either for one or two occasions, the complaint ought not to be dismissed, to prevent an aberration of Justice. If an order of acquittal is passed by the trial Court owing to the non appearance of the Complainant on the given date of hearing or there was no representation on his behalf even through Learned Counsel, the trial Court cannot brushed aside that the order of acquittal so passed is a final one and it may even bar a fresh trial as per Section 300 Cr.P.C.

10. Indeed, the Jurisdiction of an Appellate Court is coextensive with that of trial Court in the matter of assessment, appraisal and re-appreciation of evidence and to consider the centre of controversial issues. Further, an Appeal from acquittal is allowed only in exceptional circumstance. Also that, the High Court has necessary powers to upset the Order/Judgment of acquittal only when it finds substantial/compelling reasons. Moreover, if the trial Court had given untenable reasons and its approach to the case is not legal and manifestly erroneous one, then also, an Appellate Court can step in.

11. It is to be pointed out that if a