JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the complainant petitioner has impugned the order dated 24th March, 2003 as also the order dated 29th April, 2003 rendered by Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ajmer and District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer respectively. 2. Having carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is found that one complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was pending against the accused. That complaint was dismissed by the learned trial court on 25.2.2003 on account of non appearance of the complainant Prakash. Thereafter the complainant filed an application on 27.2.2003 beseeching the court to restore the complaint at its original number. The learned trial court dismissed the restoration application vide order dated 24th March, 2003. Aggrieved with this order, the complainant petitioner filed a revision petition and the same also stood dismissed. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer dismissed the revision petition on the ground that in the absence of the petitioner complainant Prakash, the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending against the accused was dismissed in the absence of the complainant invoking the provisions of Section 256 of Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Sessions Judge further observed that complaint dismissed under Section 256 of Criminal Procedure Code tangibly suggests the acquittal of the accused. Hence, once the order with regard to acquittal of the accused is passed by the court, that case could never be restored to its original number. 4. Section 256 of CrPc unequivocally postulates that if the summon has been issued on complaint and on the date appointed for the appearance of the accused or any date subsequent thereto, to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything herein before contained acquit the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer observed that once the complaint is dismissed in the absence of the complainant, the effect of the order is nothing, but the acquittal of the accused for the alleged offence and once the accused is acquitted, the same complaint cannot be ordered to be restored. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer is found to be perfectly just and apt and in consonance with the provisions of section 256 of CRPC. The impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer is found to be perfectly just and apt and in consonance with the provisions of section 256 of CRPC. Learned Sessions Judge is found to have analyzed the legal provisions ad-longum and the order impugned passed is found to have suffered from no infirmity. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the courts below and thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.Petition Dismissed. *******