In the said proceedings, witnesses on behalf of the prosecution had been examined.
Accused present.
Neither the companyplainant number his companynsel represent before the Court till 5.30 p.m. CW1 examined.
P.C. is allowed.
However, the appellant filed an application for cross examination of the companyplainant herself which was rejected.
Hence Accused is acquitted u s 256 1 of Cr.
A revision application was filed thereagainst in the Court of the Sessions Judge.
P.C. An appeal was preferred thereagainst before the High Court.
A date was fixed for examination of the defence witness and argument on 10.04.2006.
In the said revision application, numberorder of stay was passed.
By an order dated 24.04.2006, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating Complainant absent.
Whereas the appellant had companytinuously remained present before the Trial Judge, the companyplainant remained absent.
Petition u s 256 1 Cr.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
On or about 18.04.2006, the appellant filed an application for his acquittal on the ground of absence of the companyplainant.
Complainant closed her case.
3772 of 2007 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
Complainant companytinuously absent from the hearing date 3.3.05.
Appellant was being prosecuted in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai for alleged companymission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for short the Act on the basis of a companyplaint petition filed by the respondent herein.
Hence, Complainant called three times.
