M. Venugopal, J.

The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal as against the Order of Acquittal passed in S.T.C. No.6/2007 dated 04.04.2016 by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, while passing the impugned order on 04.04.2016 in S.T.C. No.6/2007, at paragraph 2 had observed the following:

"2. The Complainant called absent and no representation for third time at 4.25 PM., Accused absent. Petition filed and allowed. For the past Ten Years the case had been pending for the complainant's evidence only on 12.12.2015, the complainant's side evidence was closed, so this Court thinks that the complainant has no interest to conduct the case and did not co-operate to the court for the past ten years. The complainant is not appeared and also the counsel of complainant, hence this case is dismissed U/s.256 of CrPC. The accused is acquitted."

3. Assailing the Validity and Legality of the Order of Acquittal dated 04.04.2016, in S.T.C. No.6/2007 passed by the trial Court, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal primarily by taking a plea that the complaint was taken on file during the year 2007. Further, he was examined as P.W.1 on 16.07.2007 and thereafter, nearly 8 years was taken for cross examining him and ultimately, he was cross examined on 04.06.2015. Therefore, it is represented on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant that the trial Court had taken an erroneous view and arriving at a conclusion that the Appellant/Complainant was not interested in prosecuting the case.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant side evidence was closed on 12.02.2016 [not on 12.12.2015 as inadvertently mentioned in the impugned order]. Apart from that, the Respondent/Accused was questioned by the trial Court on 22.03.2016 [under Section 313 Cr.P.C.]. Thereafter, the main case in S.T.C. No.6/2007 was adjourned to 28.03.2016 for letting in of evidence on the side of the Respondent/Accused and that the Appellant was present on 28.03.2016, but the Respondent was absent and that the matter was adjourned to 04.04.2016.

5. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant seeks in aid of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Anand v. Vasumathi Chandrasekar, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 67, at special page 69, whereby and where under, at paragraphs 12 & 13, it was observed as follows:

"12. Section 256 of the Code provides for disposal of a complaint in default. It entails in acquittal. But, the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the said provision could have been resorted to in the facts of the case as the witnesses on behalf of the complainant have already been examined.

13. The date was fixed for examining the defence witnesses. The appellant could have examined witnesses, if he wanted to do the same. In that case, the appearance of the complainant was not necessary. It was for her to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the defence."

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant takes an emphatic plea that the trial Court had not borne in mind that whether on the date of examination of Respondent/Accused side witness/ witnesses, the presence of the Appellant/Complainant was very much essential and necessary.

7. Repelling the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Accused submits that the Appellant/Complainant before the trial Court had not evinced interest to conduct the case in S.T.C. No.6/2007 in a diligent fashion and also that, the trial Court had observed in the impugned order that the Appellant/Complainant had not cooperate to the Court for the past Ten years and also even on the date of the impugned order viz., on 04.04.2016 in S.T.C. No.6/2007, the Appellant /Complainant was not present and also his Learned Counsel was not present. Finally, the trial Court had dismissed the compliant un