JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - This petition is directed against the order dated October 22, 1990 vide which the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, erred in dismissing the complaint in default when the accused had been summoned for the date fixed. He contends that the petitioner failed to appear in Court on the said date as he fell ill and was admitted in a Nursing Home. In support of his contention he has placed on record a certificate from Roma Nursing Home, Jaipur, showing that Mr. Ashok Kumar Mangal remained admitted in the Nursing Home from October 21, 1990 to October 23, 1990. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Judicial Magistrate ought to have adjourned the case to some other date instead of outrightly dismissing the complaint in default. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a Single Bench authority of the Calcutta High Court reported as Govinda Chandra Bag v. Radhakanta Bad and others, 1987 Crl.L.J. 477. 3. I do not find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is a Company. The Chairman of the Company had authorised Mr. V.K. Garg, Commercial Manager, and Mr. A.K. Mangal, Chief Accountant, to pursue the proceedings in the Courts. If Mr. A.K. Mangal had fallen ill or was admitted in a Nursing Home on the date fixed, then Mr. V.K. Garg, Commercial Manager, could have come to the Court to pursue the complaint. But nobody cared to come to the Court to defend the complaint on October 22, 1990, which was the date fixed in the case. Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to the following effect :- "Non-appearance or death of complainant. V.K. Garg, Commercial Manager, could have come to the Court to pursue the complaint. But nobody cared to come to the Court to defend the complaint on October 22, 1990, which was the date fixed in the case. Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to the following effect :- "Non-appearance or death of complainant. - (1) If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day : Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the complainant is due to his death." 4. A perusal of the above provision shows that the Legislature in its wisdom has used the word "shall" for acquitting the accused in the event of non- appearance of the complainant on the date fixed, unless the Magistrate thinks it proper to adjourn the case. In the present case, I am of the view that illness of Mr. A.K. Mangal was not a genuine ground for non-appearance of the complainant in the Court. In case Mr. A.K. Mangal was unable to appear on the date fixed, then some other officer of the Company could have put in appearance in the Court. The complainant was not even represented by a counsel on the said date. The facts of the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the case in hand. 5. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.