Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. (1) THE petitioner, viz. , B. Narayanaswamy filed a complaint against the respondent, viz. , Radha Balan for an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was taken on file as C. C. No. 7088 of 1991 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. (2) IT appears that on issue of process respondent/accused entered appearance through a counsel of his choice. (3) THE case was posted for trial on 11. 12. 1991 and on that day, the complainant for no reason whatever, did not appear before the Court. Consequently, learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure code, for the absence of the complainant, giving rise to the present action. (4) THE order of the learned Magistrate in acquitting the accused for the absence of the complainant, when especially no reason came forth for such absence, cannot at all be said to be not tenable in law. As such, this revision which deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.