JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.5.2004 passed by the learned JMFC, Barida in Criminal Case No. 1002/1996, whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 2.0 The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 The complainant was proprietor of Mahalaxmi Investment Firm, and indulging in the business of purchase and sell of shares and being a proprietor of the said firm, the complainant was doing the said business. On that point of time, accused was an owner and administrator of "Shri Gayatri Translines" firm and having shares of some companies. The complainant and accused have business relations and they were familiar with each other, therefore, accused had sold out some shares of companies through complainant but next day delivery was backed by the bank to the complainant and therefore, the complainant told to the accused about facts. Thereupon, the accused had given, signed cheque bearing No. 859250 of Indian Overseas Bank. Mehra Pole, Baroda dated 5.2.1996 of his account for the sum of Rs. 45,000/- in favour of "Mahalaxmi Investments". That when the complainant presented the cheque for encashment, it was returned with Memo. The complainant had immediately informed to the accused, therefore, accused replied that he may deposit the said cheque after 15 days and he will get the amount. Therefore, the complainant had again deposited cheque dated 18.3.1996 but it was dishonoured and returned back with an endorsement "NOT ARRANGED FOR". Thereafter, complainant had issued notice through an advocate by RPAD post and UPC and it was duly served upon the accused, but the accused did not turn up and paid legal dues to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant had filed the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the learned JMFC, Baroda, which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 1002/1996. The learned Magistrate has, thereafter, taken cognizance and issued process to the accused and the trial was initiated against the respondent-accused. Therefore, the complainant had filed the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the learned JMFC, Baroda, which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 1002/1996. The learned Magistrate has, thereafter, taken cognizance and issued process to the accused and the trial was initiated against the respondent-accused. 2.2 That on 20.5.2004, the learned JMFC, Baroda has dismissed the complaint of the complainant on the ground that complainant or his advocate is not present before the Court till 5.30 p.m. 2.3 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial Court the appellant original complainant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned advocate Ms. Sneha Joshi for the appellant and Mr. H. L. Jani Learned APP for respondent No. 2 State. Respondent No. 1 is served but none appears on his behalf. 4. It is pertinent to note that original the present appellant has filed the complaint against the respondent for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 1.5.1996 and on the same day, verification of the complainant present appellant was recorded by the learned Magistrate, Vadodara and thereafter the complaint was came to be registered under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and summons was also issued against the respondent on the same day. Thereafter, the complainant never bothered to appear before the learned Magistrate. therefore, on 23.2.2004 notice was issued to the complainant and plea was recorded on 9.3.2004. On 23.3.2004. though respondent-accused was present, the advocate for the appellant had given an application Ex. 9 for issuance of Non-bailable warrant. When it was came to the notice of the learned Magistrate that though accused is present. yet the learned advocate for the complainant had given application Ex. 9 for issuance of non-bailable warrant, the learned Magistrate has awarded cost of Rs. 50/- to the respondent and rejected the said application and case was adjourned to 20.5.2004. On 20.5.2004, accused present respondent was present before the trial Court but learned advocate for the complainant and complainant himself were absent. Therefore, the Court had waited till 5.30 p.m. for the complainant and his advocate, but when they did not turn up, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant and respondent was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 5. Therefore, the Court had waited till 5.30 p.m. for the complainant and his advocate, but when they did not turn up, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant and respondent was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 5. At the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Mellon alias Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 : ( AIR 2006 SC 3366 ), the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under: "54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below." 6. "Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 7. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. 8. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant. From the perusal of rojnama and the observation of the learned Magistrate, it appears that the complainant is totally negligent and due to such negligence on the part of the complainant and his advocate. they never appeared before the learned Magistrate and due to non-availability of prosecution witness, the said criminal case was dismissed. From the perusal of rojnama and the observation of the learned Magistrate, it appears that the complainant is totally negligent and due to such negligence on the part of the complainant and his advocate. they never appeared before the learned Magistrate and due to non-availability of prosecution witness, the said criminal case was dismissed. It is true that the learned Magistrate should not feel helpless when the complainant is not appearing before the Court and. therefore, the learned Magistrate has a right to dismiss the complaint. Today, learned advocate Ms. Sneha Joshi appearing for the appellant has argued that looking to the contents of the appeal, it is a fit case to remand the matter before the learned Magistrate. However, from the perusal of the papers produced before me, it appears that the learned Magistrate has not committed any wrong while dismissing the complaint because the complainant was not remaining present before the trial Court since long time. From the perusal of the observation made by the learned Magistrate, when the question regarding said appeal is arise. a specific query is also made to the learned advocate for the appellant, to which, she stated that till today, the present appellant original complainant is not in her contact. It shows that the present appellant has no interest in the present appeal as well as in the original complaint. It further appears that the present appellant habitual in not remaining present before the court. Even in the present appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial Court. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Ms. Sneha Joshi learned Advocate is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record. 10. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him. 11. In the result. this appeal is hereby dismissed. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court. forthwith. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Appeal dismissed.