M. Venugopal, J.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. Service of Paper publication was effected in Tamil and English Dailies as directed by this Court as per order dated 23.01.2017. Respondent called absent. There is no representation on the side of the Respondent either in person or through Learned Counsel. In view of the publication being effected in Tamil and English Dailies, the service against the Respondent is held sufficient by this Court.

Preamble:

3. The Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has focused the instant Criminal Original Petition praying for the 'Grant of Leave' to file Criminal Appeal as against the order dated 30.12.2015 in C.C. No.77 of 2007 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Krishnagiri.

4. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Krishnagiri, while passing the impugned order in C.C. No.77 of 2007 on 30.12.2015, had, among other things, observed that 'on the side of the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant no process fee was paid and also when the Petitioner/Complainant was called before Court, there was no representation on his side and further that he had not appeared and since an Advocate had not appeared on behalf of the Petitioner/Complainant, a Non Bailable Warrant was issued against the Respondent/Accused. Furthermore, the NBW was pending from 27.07.2015 till date and no steps were taken on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant to produce the Respondent/Accused and in spite of sufficient time being granted to the Petitioner/Complainant, no steps were taken to produce the Respondent/Accused and also, no further steps were taken to conduct the case. Furthermore, on 30.12.2015, the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant had not appeared continuously and there was no representation on his behalf. No steps were taken on the side of the Petitioner/Complainant to produce the Respondent/Accused before this Court, hence, in the interest of Justice and also in the interest of Court, the present case is dismissed'.

Contentions of the Petitioner/Complainant:

5. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant, the Petitioner/Complainant filed the Complaint on 02.08.2008 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the same was taken on file on 14.03.2007.

6. In this connection, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner/Complainant that the Respondent/Accused evaded service and a Bailable Warrant was issued and on 16.12.2013, the Respondent/Accused surrendered before the Court on 17.12.2013 and on being questioned, he denied the allegation and the case was adjourned for trial with a view to examine the witnesses concerned. Finally, on 30.06.2014 there was no representation on the side of the Respondent/Accused and that the trial Court was perforced to issue a Bailable Warrant against him.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant submits that the Respondent/Accused again surrendered on 02.07.2014 before the Court and later on 04.09.2015, the Petitioner/Complainant was present and was ready and on that day, the proof affidavit was filed and on the side of the Respondent/Accused, there was no representation and consequently, a Non Bailable Warrant was issued against the Respondent/Accused.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant submits that in the present case, the original cheque was missing from the Court records and only for this prime reason the hearing of the main case in C.C. No.77 of 2007 was adjourned from time to time.

9. The emphatic stand of the Petitioner is that on 01.12.2015 he was present before the trial Court and since NBW was pending against the Respondent, on 30.12.2015, C.C. No.77 of 2007 was dismissed by the trial Court mainly on the ground that on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant, a process fee was not paid and also there was no representation on his side and also that, the Petitioner/Complainant had not appeared before the trial Court continuously and there was also no represent