Judgment : BHASKARA RAO, J. (1) A complaint under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is filed since the cheque issued was dishonoured. That was taken on file and posted to 29-12-89 for appearance of the accused. On that day the complainant and his counsel both, were absent. The complaint therefore was dismissed. Hence this appeal. (2) THE learned counsel for the appellant complainant submitted that though the court has the discretion to dismiss a complaint under Section 256 Crl. P C for absence of the complainant and the counsel the same has got to be exercise judiciously and any improper exercise thereof can be interfered with by the appellate court. (3) AS pointed out by the learned counsel this court in AIR 1969 AP 222 while considering the scope; of the sec. 247 cr. P C of the old code (corresponding to sec. 256 Cr, P C of the present code) held the High court in an appeal filed is entitled to go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the course for the absence of the complainant are set aside the order of acquittal. (4) IT is stated clearly that the complaint was posted to 29-12-1989 for appearance of the accused. On that day even a 1 and A 3 WTC hb,nt and a memo was filed on their behalf When A 1 and A 3 were absent and the case stood for that day for the appearance of the andceused, and there was no proceeding which the complainant was to take on that day, the court below ought to have adjouintd she matter. In AIR 1969 Gujarat 176 the facts involved are identical on all fcur are there holding that the Magistrate could acquit the accused if only an order of adjournment was thought not proper set aside the said order of acquittal. Accordingly the present order of dismissal is set aside and the matter in remitted back to the trial court for proper disposal afresh The revision is accordingly allowed.