JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pradeep Jayaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court – II, Allikulam, Chennai in C.C.No.5897 of 2019, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the Revision Petitioner / complainant for his being absent on the date of hearing. The said complaint was dismissed by the trial court exercising power under section 256(1) of Cr.P.C. The impugned order reads as under:

'Complainant absent. No representation.

Notice sent to the complainant. This case was pending from 2017. Complainant was absent continuously for several hearings. Hence, Notice was sent to complainant on 30.06.2022 in D.No.426 of 2022. Sufficient opportunities given tot he complainant to make his appearance before this court. Even today the complainant not appeared.

Considering all the above circumstances and the summary nature of this case, this complaint is hereby dismissed u/s.256(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused acquitted.'

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 1^st respondent is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act represented by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents as their Directors. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondents are husband and wife and are in charge of the day to day affairs of the 1^st respondent company and they used to negotiate and place orders for supply of stainless steel sheets, rods and pipes to the appellant. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that on 30.07.2018, the respondent owed and liable to pay Rs.54,70,735/- excluding interest for belated payment towards supply of the aforesaid materials. Thereafter, the respondent No.2, on behalf of the respondent No.1 issued cheque drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Anna Nagar East, Chennai, bearing No.000013 dated 30.07.2018 for a sum of Rs.54,70,735/-. The appellant presented the above cheque for collection through its Bankers namely Corporation Bank, Anna Nagar, Chennai Branch on 30.07.2018, but the same has been dishonoured with an endorsement 'Funds Insufficient'. Thereafter, again the cheque was presented and again it was dishonoured as 'Funds Insufficient', When the Appellant informed about the legal action to be taken, an assurance was given by the 2^nd respondent that he will pay the said amount after some time and the said information was recieved by the appellant on 20.10.2018.

4. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the

2^nd respondent was playing fraud with the appellant and there was no fund in his account and he was not intended to pay the same to him in lieu of the cheque issued by him. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued by the appellant to the respondents to pay the cheque amount. Since the respondents have not paid the cheque amount inspite of repeated requests and legal notice sent, left with no other alternative, the appellant filed complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As the appellant was busy person and involved in his business activities, he used to go to other places in respect of his business transactions, therefore he engaged an Advocate Mr.Ravindra Kumar to look after the matter and the Advocate was regularly appearing in the case, but unfortunately, on the date of the impugned order, i.e., on 15.07.2022, the counsel appeared and asked for an adjournment as the appellant was in Jaipur regarding the admission of his daughter and so he was not present at the time when the matter was called on 15.07.2023, but the learned trial court did not accept the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant for adjourment of the case and exercising power under section 256(1) of Cr.P.C., he dismissed the complaint without assigning any valid reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Thus, the l