JUDGMENT 1. By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the order dated 9.1.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Udaipur (for short the Trial Court hereinafter) dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act hereinafter), has been challenged by the petitioner. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the order impugned. 3. It appears that the petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the respondent before the trial Court and the trial Court took the cognizance of the offence and issued process and in pursuance thereof, the respondent appeared before the trial Court and the substance of accusation was read over to him and the matter was posted for evidence of the complainant on 9.1.2006, however, on 9.1.2006, neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared and trial Court dismissed the complaint in default. 4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that there were two cases of similar nature and in both the cases, the complaints have been, filed by the petitioner and pending in the same Court, however, the date fixed was 9.3.2006 and accordingly, the petitioners Counsel noted down the date as 9.3.2006, whereas in fact in one case the date 9.3.2006 and in other case 9.1.2006 was fixed but inadvertently the mistake has been made by the Counsel representing the complainant in noting down the dates fixed by the trial Court. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Mohd. Azeem v. A. Venkatesh & Anr., 2003 Cr.L.R. (SC) 211 , wherein on similar facts, the Honble Supreme Court restored the complaint. In that case, the accused was acquitted on the ground of non-appearance of the complainant only on one day. However, the complainant moved an application seeking restoration of the complaint, which came to be dismissed against which an appeal was filed before the High Court, which also came to be dismissed. The Apex Court has held that mere absence on one date on account of wrong noting of date is a valid ground for restoration of complaint. 6. The facts of the instant case are almost identical to that of Mohd. Azeem v. A. Venkatesh & Anr. The Apex Court has held that mere absence on one date on account of wrong noting of date is a valid ground for restoration of complaint. 6. The facts of the instant case are almost identical to that of Mohd. Azeem v. A. Venkatesh & Anr. (supra) and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and the criminal complaint deserves to be restored. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 9.1.2006 is set aside. The criminal complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act is restored. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the complaint case from the stage as it was on 9.1.2006 and conclude the complaint case utmost expeditiously. Both the parties to appear before the trial Court on 19.5.2008 without any further notice.Petition allowed. *******