P.V. HARDAS, J.: - With the consent of learned Counsel for the applicant this application, which seeks grant of leave to file appeal is heard. 2. By this application the applicant seeks leave for filing appeal against the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmednagar, dated 15.7.2004, dismissing the complaint on account of absence of the complainant and thereby consequently acquitting the accused. It appears that the applicant/complainant had filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent/accused. Summons came to be issued and served on the respondent/accused. The respondent/accused thereafter furnished bail. The particulars of the offence were explained to the respondent/accused and the case was fixed for recording evidence on 28.4.2004. The applicant/complainant sought adjournment and thereafter the matter was posted on 26.5.2004. On that day no evidence could be recorded as the Presiding Officer was on leave. Thereafter on 15.7.2004, when the case was called out, neither the complainant nor his Counsel were present and, therefore, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint under section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and acquitted the respondent/accused. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal of the complaint, the applicant/complainant preferred Revision Application before the Sessions Court at Ahmednagar which came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court on the ground that the revision was not maintainable. Thereafter the applicant/complainant filed Criminal Writ Petition No.158 of 2005 in this Court. This Court also found that the aforesaid writ petition was not maintainable as the applicant/complainant had a substantive remedy of appeal under section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Mr Malte, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Mohd. Azeem vs. A. Venkatesh & anr, 400 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 400. The Supreme Court in this judgment had held that the dismissal of the complaint on default of the appearance of the complainant on a single date was due to bonafide mistake and the dismissal was not proper and, therefore, complaint ought to be restored on sufficient cause being shown. 5. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the applicant I have perused the memorandum of revision which was filed before the Sessions Court at Ahmednagar as well as the writ petition which was filed before this Court. 5. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the applicant I have perused the memorandum of revision which was filed before the Sessions Court at Ahmednagar as well as the writ petition which was filed before this Court. Perusal of the aforesaid memorandum of revision and the writ petition does not disclose that any cause was shown by the complainant for his non appearance before the Trial Court when the case was called out for recording the evidence of the complainant. Even in the present appeal no cause is shown by the applicant/compainant as to why the applicant/complainant could not remain present before the Trial Court when the matter was called out. The complaint is not dismissed on account of non appearance of the complainant on a single date. Earlier also the complainant is shown to have been absent and an adjournment had been sought on an earlier occasion. Thus, since no cause whatsoever is shown in the pleadings as to why the applicant/complainant could not remain present before the Court when the case was called out, according to me, no case for interference is made out, much less in an appeal against acquittal. In the light of that, since there is no merit in the application, Criminal Application No.2165 of 2006 seeking leave to file appeal against acquittal is refused and the application is dismissed. Application dismissed.